KAMPALA, Uganda — A Ugandan man has lodged a formal complaint with the Chief Justice, accusing lawyer Arthur Murangira of legal malpractice, manipulation of court proceedings and forgery. Rodgers Waiswa claims he has experienced “direct harm through judicial arm-twisting and procedural irregularities” at Murangira’s hands.
Waiswa’s complaint, dated May 20, 2025, follows his unsuccessful civil revision application in the High Court, where he sought to overturn a 2018 default judgment obtained by Earth Rich Co. Limited, a money lending company where Murangira serves as managing director.
Waiswa alleges a profound “conflict of interest,” stating that Murangira “ruthlessly served both roles” — as a legal practitioner and managing director of Earth Rich Co. Limited — from the same office located at Mabirizi Complex. He further claims that Murangira drafts loan agreements with “exorbitant interest rates without proper disclosure” and “leverages both roles to push through ex parte decisions, effectively bypassing fair legal process” when borrowers default.
In his complaint, Rodgers points to findings within his High Court ruling, Waiswa Rodgers v Earth Rich Co. Limited (2024 UGCommC 183), as evidence of Murangira’s alleged unethical practices. The High Court noted that the original agreement “does not indicate where the Agreement was executed from”, but Rodgers maintained it occurred at Mabirizi Complex, Kampala. The High Court’s ruling indicated that Earth Rich Co. Limited’s submissions asserted the contract and promissory notes were “executed and completed at Kajjansi Trading Center”. Rodgers alleges this discrepancy points to “jurisdictional manipulation” and a “deliberate choice of forum suggest[ing] an attempt to exploit relationships within that jurisdiction”.
Waiswa also alleges that an annexure purporting to evidence a 7.2 million Ugandan shillings loan was a “forgery” which he “first saw in court”. He claims this, “coupled with contradictory representations about the transaction venue… points to a systematic fabrication or manipulation of the documentary evidence”.
The High Court ruling itself noted that Murangira’s legal counsel “filed the submissions very late on 22nd May, 2024 at 5:12pm and yet he knew that delivery of the Ruling was scheduled for 23rd May, 2024”. Rodgers further claims that “several preliminary objections raised by me were left unaddressed by him”, and expressed shock that “the judge instead considered his preliminary objections and made no mention of mine”.
Waiswa alleges that he only began making payments after a “warrant of arrest was issued against him”, describing this as a “coercive legal pressure” tactic that “highlights an abuse of the legal process designed to force settlements or compliance under duress”. He claims this is a “very common tactic used by Earth Rich Co Ltd and Arthur Murangira where they secretly proceed ex parte in tow with Grade I Magistrates, arrest the debtor and then force them into consent judgments while they are in prison”.
The High Court ultimately dismissed Rodgers’ application for revision, primarily due to “inordinate delay” in filing it, noting it was filed “three (3) years after judgment had been delivered and two (2) years after execution had been commenced”. The court also found that the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kajjansi had jurisdiction to hear the original case, based on the address provided by Rodgers in the promissory note, which stated his address as Kajjansi. The High Court also stated it could not consider the merits of the forgery claim during the revisionary powers.
Waiswa is now requesting the Chief Justice to conduct a “forensic investigation into Mr. Arthur Murangira’s fraudulent documentation practices, particularly the forged promissory note”. He also seeks a review of previous cases handled by Murangira’s firm and Earth Rich Co. Limited to identify “recurring patterns of document fabrication, jurisdictional manipulation, and procedural irregularities”. Additionally, he calls for an assessment of how Grade I Magistrates handle forgery allegations in such cases and “appropriate disciplinary and legal proceedings to restore judicial integrity”.
