Hamis Kiggundu, known as Ham, lost his Supreme Court appeal when six judges unanimously ruled that DTB Uganda and DTB Kenya’s Shillings 120 billion loan was legal.
In Hamis Kiggundu vs. DTB Kenya, Kiggundu claimed that DTB Kenya had no permission to operate in Uganda when it came to debt repayment, which DTB Uganda recovered for its Kenyan counterpart.
On June 13, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the loan facility was legitimate and ordered Ham to pay 50% of court costs.
“In the instant case before this Court, the 2nd Respondent (DTB Kenya) is neither licensed nor regulated to carry out financial institution business in Uganda; hence, its appointment of the 1st Respondent (DTB Uganda) as its banking agent could not have been so done under the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Agent Banking) Regulations, 2017,” the ruling read.
Second, the 1st Respondent, as an entity licensed to conduct financial institution business in Uganda, could have been appointed a banking agent of the 2nd Respondent under the Financial Institutions Act, 2004, as amended, and the Agent Banking Regulations of 2017.
The ruling continued that the Financial Institutions Act, 2004, as amended, and the Financial Institutions (Agent Banking) Regulations, 2017, did not govern the relationship between these two banking institutions and the appellants regarding financial credit transactions.
So, the Supreme Court looked at all the facts and sent the case to the High Court for trial, minus the question of whether or not it was legal.
In the appeal, Kiggundu said that DTB Uganda and DTB Kenya took more than 120 billion from his bank accounts under the guise of paying back a loan he had taken out with the banks, even though he had already paid back the loan in full.
Judge Peter Adonyo told DTB to give Ham back all the money that was taken out of his account.
