A Kampala resident has lodged a formal complaint with the Uganda Law Council against Arthur-Arutha Legal & Co. Advocates, accusing the firm of operating as a disguised money lending outfit and engaging in fraudulent legal practices that violate professional ethics and undermine judicial integrity.
In a detailed letter dated May 19, 2025, addressed to the Chief Registrar of the High Court and copied to multiple high-level institutions, including the Inspector General of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority, and all media houses, Tom Olwo alleges that Arthur-Arutha Legal & Co. Advocates functions not as a law firm, but as a legal arm of Earth Rich Company Limited, a money lending business operating from the same premises at Mabirizi Complex, Kampala Road.
According to the whistleblower, the firm’s lead partner, Mr. Arthur Murangira, also serves as the Managing Director of Earth Rich Company Limited, creating a direct conflict of interest and breaching the core principle of legal independence.
“I am being eaten alive in Civil Case No. MEN-00CV-TA-0052-2025,” Mr. Olwo writes, referencing his ongoing legal battle with Earth Rich Company Limited in which Arthur-Arutha Legal & Co. Advocates serves as legal counsel. “This law firm exists solely to enforce debt recovery for one client—Earth Rich—and leverages judicial loopholes, forged documents, and collusion with court officers to trap unsuspecting debtors.”
The complaint details several allegations, including submission of forged affidavits, falsified court documents, and unlawful coordination between the firm’s representatives and magistrates presiding over cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mengo.
Mr. Olwo specifically mentions repeated ex parte rulings and questionable arrest warrants issued in cases involving Earth Rich Company Limited, many of which are said to have been processed without proper service of summons.
He further claims that Bernard Mubangizi, a loan officer with Earth Rich Company Limited, frequently appears in court on behalf of the firm and has engaged in direct, informal conversations with magistrates, sometimes in full view of litigants. “On more than one occasion, this loan officer spoke to the magistrate handling my case and asked for favors while I watched,” the letter states.
The whistleblower argues that this level of familiarity and influence compromises judicial impartiality, particularly in Grade I Magistrates’ Courts, where the firm allegedly concentrates its activities.
He notes that Arthur-Arutha Legal & Co. Advocates has no known record of cases at the High Court, describing it as a red flag and suggesting a deliberate focus on lower courts to exploit procedural gaps.
Mr. Olwo’s complaint outlines a broader pattern of predatory legal conduct, alleging that the law firm, working in tandem with Earth Rich Company Limited, uses the courts as a tool to pursue coercive debt recovery through unfair means.
“This is not a law firm; it is a debt collection outfit masquerading as a legal practice,” he writes.
He now calls on the Uganda Law Council to initiate an urgent investigation into the firm’s operations, its links to Earth Rich Company Limited, and its compliance with professional standards governing legal practice.
Among his requests are a forensic audit of court filings submitted by the firm, disciplinary action against those involved, and the revocation of the firm’s legal license.
“A law firm cannot be both lender and prosecutor. It violates every norm of professional ethics,” Olwo argues.
The complaint is likely to draw considerable attention, particularly in light of increasing concerns over the misuse of civil litigation processes to enforce non-transparent loan agreements.
Legal observers say the allegations, if substantiated, would warrant regulatory intervention not just from the Law Council but also from Uganda’s financial and judicial oversight bodies.
At the time of filing this story, the Uganda Law Council had not issued a formal response to the complaint. However, sources within the legal community suggest the matter could prompt a broader review of law firms with financial interests and their influence over lower courts.
