How banking disputes have the economy in a chokehold

The Commercial Court building in Kampala. On average, the court receives about 2,000 cases annually with only half of these going up to disposal. Photo/File

In 2012, George William Kiyega, a Kampala-based construction engineer, walked into dfcu Bank and borrowed Shs318 million, secured against land he owned in Bunamwaya, Wakiso District. He repaid the loan.

By his account, that should have been the end of it. Thirteen years later, Mr Kiyega sat before a panel of five Supreme Court justices on April 16, 2025, without a lawyer, representing himself and his company, Wills International Engineers and Contractors Limited, in a case that has become one of Uganda's most closely watched commercial disputes. On the other side of the courtroom was dfcu Bank, represented by senior counsel Timothy Masembe Kanyerezi and the law firm MMAKS Advocates.

The case has wound through every tier of Uganda's court system. It has produced a split Court of Appeal judgment that found the bank's conduct illegal and fraudulent, a contempt enforcement battle in the High Court, and a damages award that, if left intact, would run into the billions of shillings. Dfcu denies wrongdoing and has appealed to the Court of Appeal judgment on seven grounds, and maintains it acted within its legal rights throughout. The Supreme Court has reserved judgment. Five justices; Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Monica Kalyegira Mugenyi, and Muzamiru Kibeedi Mutangula, will have the final word.

The facts established across more than a decade of proceedings are not, at their core, disputed in their broad outline. What is fiercely contested is their legal meaning. Between 2012 and 2014, Mr Kiyega and his company obtained a series of credit facilities from dfcu, including a Shs200 million medium-term loan and a Shs220 million contract finance facility, both secured against land on Block 265 Plot 7346 at Bunamwaya. A separate piece of land; Plot 7347, was left with the bank for safe custody in connection with an earlier loan that had since been repaid.

According to court records, mortgage charges in respect of the medium-term loan and a performance bond facility were registered on Plot 7347, the safe custody title, rather than on Plot 7346, the intended security. The bank has consistently described at least one of these registrations as an inadvertent error, partly caused by the Commissioner of Land Registration, and says corrective steps were taken. The Court of Appeal majority, however, found that the pattern of encumbrances, including entries recorded on the same d