KAMPALA: The High Court’s Land Division has upheld its earlier judgment in favour of Meera Investments Limited in a protracted property dispute with DFCU Bank, reaffirming the company’s ownership of 48 prime properties across the country.
In a ruling delivered on January 2, 2026, Justice Samuel Emokor maintained that Meera Investments is the lawful holder of the freehold and Mailo interests in the contested properties, dismissing arguments advanced by DFCU Bank in ongoing proceedings related to the matter.
The dispute traces back to an October 2023 decision in which the court found the bank’s continued occupation of the properties unlawful and ordered it to vacate within three months, restore the premises to their original condition, and cease any further interference.
Court records indicate that DFCU has since vacated 47 of the 48 properties. However, the financial implications of restoring the assets have now taken centre stage.
An assessment conducted by registered quantity surveyor Mr Oscar C. Walubi placed the cost of reinstating the properties to a usable state at Shs33.9 billion. With 18 percent Value Added Tax amounting to Shs6.1 billion, the total restoration cost rises to approximately Shs40.1 billion.
In his latest ruling, Justice Emokor underscored that the filing of an appeal does not automatically halt the enforcement of a court decree unless a formal stay of execution is granted.
The judge observed that at the time Meera Investments, through its legal representatives, forwarded the bills of quantities on June 11, 2024, no order suspending execution of the 2023 judgment had been issued.
He further directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to cancel DFCU Bank’s registration as leasehold proprietor and nullify any titles arising from the disputed properties.
Although the court declined to cite the bank for contempt—citing the existence of a stay of execution pending appeal—the substantive findings of the October 2023 judgment remain in force.
These include the declaration of Meera Investments as the sole registered proprietor of the properties, the classification of DFCU’s occupation as trespass, and the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining the bank, its agents, or assigns from further interference.
The ruling marks another significant development in one of the country’s most closely watched commercial property disputes, with substantial financial and legal implications for the parties involved.