Rajiv Ruparelia after winning the Kabalega Rally
Kabalega motor rally losers can’t stomach fact that Rajiv Ruparelia, a crowned champion outwitted them, and have since resorted to engineering malicious campaign to soil his name.
Those at the vanguard of denting the new champion in motorsport are Ronald Sebuguzi and Duncan Mubiru alias Kikankane.
Rajiv exuded an exceptional performance by keeping within the top times of the event.
Giants Sebuguzi and Kikankane however, have never settled from the time Rajiv was announced winner.
They also attempted to block his victory during the event by petitioning the Clerk of the Course (COC) but were late as the law stipulates.
The ‘wounded’ pair is determined to malign the young rally ace
However, the COC Katende Mukiibi’s report clearly ratifies Rajiv’s victory and explains deeply the circumstances why Kikankane and Sebuguzi’s complaint was dust binned after failing to provide evidence as the law requires and also having been raised 30 minutes past time.
“No protests were received. The Crew of Ronald Ssebuguzi / Anthony Mugambwa and the Crew of Duncan Mubiru / Musa Nsubuga attempted to lodge protests at 19:31 hours. Having posted the provisional results at 18:40hrs and the same being signed at 19:28hrs I decline to receive the proposed protests since they were out of the stipulated 30 minutes from the time of posting provisional results,” the COC report reads.
In fining Rajiv’s crew Shs 500,000 on grounds of infringement, Katende admits that imposing a penalty was a huge mistake and “shouldn’t have happened” and must be “refunded.”
“In error, Crew No. 62 was fined of UGX 500,0001= (receipted on FMU receipt No. 025) This I own as having been a mistake and should not have happened. I therefore request the organizing club to liaise with FMU to ensure the crew is refunded the same,” the report adds.
In his report, Katende expressly states that whereas Sebuguzi and Duncan approached him lodging protests against Rajiv, they didn’t have evidence.
“I offered them to provide evidence which up to the end of the event was not delivered. Based on the control report and lack of further evidence of witnesses, I could not place the responsibility of the delay entirely on the crews since it was acting under instruction and supervision of the safety marshal.”
