KAMPALA. The Federation of Uganda Football Association (FUFA) has denied allegation that Former Sports Club Villa president Joseph Mbazzi Muguluma aka Ben Misagga was entitled to any reliefs after facilitating the conclusion of a title sponsorship and broadcasting rights agreement.
Last month, Mr Misagga dragged FUFA as the first defendant alongside FUFA Super League Limited and Star DTV (Uganda) CO. Limited as second and third defendants respectively to court.
In FUFA’s defence file through their attorneys of M/s Ochieng Associated Advocates and Solicitors, and M/s Ambrose Tebyasa agree that on the basis of the foregoing suit, Mr Misagga participated in the meeting between officials of first and third defendants but, his participation was solicited voluntaliry towards conclusion of the negotiations and that he was not involved in the last decisive meetings that concluded negotiations.
“That long after the execution of the Sponsorship agreement between the first and third defendant, the first defendant was shocked to receive baseless, unfounded and outrageous demands for commission from Mr Misagga when no such commission or remuneration had ever been agreed upon between him and the first defendant whether explicitly, impliedly or otherwise,” FUFA’s defence reads in part.
“…towards the expiry of the Broadcasting Sponsorship contract between the first and second on one part and Azam Pay TV Ltd on the other part, FUFA started searching for alternative Sponsors since Azam Pay TV had informally indicated to FUFA that it would not renew its contract with FUFA and FUFA Super League Limited,” FUFA’s defence to Misagga’s suit reads in part.
“That FUFA through its officials directly approached the third defendant for a possible league broadcast Sponsorship sometime in July 2017.Subsequently, on or about August 1, 2017, the first and third defendants having realized that their informal engagement would probably result into a serious formal and contractual sponsorship agreement, they executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement as basis for their further contractual dealings…” the defence reads adding that this was done much earlier than Mr Misagga’s purported and claimed intervention.
With the above during the trial FUFA will aver that the complainant having had no relationship them weather contractual or otherwise on the sponsorship agreement between them (FUFA) and the third defendant, Mr Misagga’s claims and demands in the plaint are erroneous and unfounded, so he is entitled to no remedies and pray for dismissal of the case.
In FUFA Super League Limited defence statement they claims at the start of trial they will raise preliminary objection that the instant suit is nullity, frivolous and vexatious as it does not disclose a cause of action against them.
They assert that as the second defendant they have never made any promises or representation for payment to Mr Misagga. So during the hearing they will put him strict proof thereof.
FUFA Super League Limited confirm that they are private liability company which is composed of football clubs in Uganda top tier league and runs the local league with independence from FUFA and deny receiving of notice on intention to be sued.
According to Star DTV (Uganda) CO. Limited defence statement to the suit, it claims it has worked with FUFA and FUFA Super League Limited well since the execution of the said Agreement and they have fulfilled and performed their duties as stipulated in Agreement.
Through its attorneys of C/o M/s KSMO Advocates it explains that in the negotiation leading up to the said sponsorship Agreement, as the third defendants on Mr Misagga’s suit, it states it never promised anyone any commission off the sponsorship consideration and Agreement was negotiated by their appointed agents.
“It is aware that the plaintiff (Misagga) approached it in respect to prospect of reaching a broadcast sponsorship agreement for Uganda Football with first and second defendants,” the defence statement reads in part.
It confirms that thereafter several negotiations were held involving Mr Misagga, the first and the second defendants on the same subject which culminated into execution of the Broadcasting Agreement. That at all material time during negotiations Mr Misagga was ostensibly acting as the official liaison of the first and second defendants.
However, the third defendant is not aware of the relationship amongst Mr Misagga, first and second defendants but what it can state is that they worked and seemed to be working as a single party on one hand.