The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Peter Ziruntusa, a UK-based Ugandan lawyer, against his former romantic partner, Meribel Resty Mbabazi, in which he claimed she had defrauded him of over Shs422 million. Ziruntusa, who is also known as Peter Campbell, alleged that the money was sent for investment purposes in Uganda.
Ziruntusa, an immigration lawyer in the UK since 2004, told the court that he met Mbabazi on Facebook in November 2015. Their relationship, he said, quickly developed, and he began sending large sums of money to her, which he claimed were intended for real estate, farming, and fishing projects in Uganda.
According to him, Mbabazi was responsible for managing these investments, based on an oral agreement between the two. The funds were reportedly transferred through various mobile money platforms, including SendWave, MT, and Salabed.
Three other individuals were also named in the case: Desire Mwesigwa Lutabaire, Johnson Asaba Byaruhanga (also known as Faisal Waisswa), and Jackson Musitwa Mugwanya. They similarly denied any business dealings with Ziruntusa. While they acknowledged discussing a potential partnership to build a medical center in Mukono, they claimed the project never materialized because Ziruntusa did not provide the necessary financial contributions, despite initially agreeing to a 40% stake.
In his ruling on October 11, 2024, Justice Musa Ssekaana dismissed Ziruntusa’s claims, concluding that the relationship between him and Mbabazi was primarily personal and lacked any solid business foundation. The judge criticized Ziruntusa for failing to separate romantic involvement from business matters, stating, “The plaintiff was using ‘a sugarcane as a walking stick,’ failing to distinguish between personal affection and business commitments. This court cannot assist him in transforming romantic indulgences into business obligations.”
Ssekaana noted that if Ziruntusa’s true intention had been to invest in Uganda, he should have approached the situation more formally, ensuring clear boundaries between personal and business interests. The judge further pointed out that much of the money sent could easily have been considered gifts rather than investment funds, particularly given the nature of their relationship.
Additionally, the court emphasized that claims for financial recovery in cases involving unmarried cohabitants are only valid when there is clear joint ownership, such as through registered assets or joint bank accounts. In this case, there was no evidence of such an arrangement, leaving Ziruntusa unable to reclaim the money.
Justice Ssekaana ordered both parties to bear their own legal costs, citing the personal nature of the dispute and the need to prevent further tensions arising from their failed relationship.