By Annet Kobusingye
The High Court Land Division has reiterated and reinforced its earlier judgment in favour of Meera Investments Limited, affirming the company’s ownership rights over dozens of prime properties across the country in its dispute with DFCU Bank.
In the ruling delivered by Justice Samuel Emokor dated January, 2, 2026 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1615 of 2024, the court revisited the substantive judgment issued on October 24, 2023 in Civil Suit No. 948 of 2017, in which Meera Investments emerged successful.
In that decision, the court declared that DFCU Bank’s occupation and continued utilisation of the suit properties constituted trespass and confirmed that Meera Investments Limited is the registered proprietor of the freehold and Mailo interests in the properties.
The court had ordered, “the 1st Defendant is hereby ordered to vacate all the suit properties and render vacant possession to the Plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment after restoring them in a tenable position.”
The decree further directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to cancel DFCU’s registration as leasehold proprietor on Meera’s properties and to cancel all leasehold titles emanating from the suit properties. A permanent injunction was also issued restraining the bank, its agents and servants from continued trespass.
In the latest proceedings, the court acknowledged that DFCU complied with the order to vacate by handing over 47 of the 48 suit premises to Meera Investments.
“The Applicant in his Affidavit in support states that the Respondent complied with the first strand of the order by vacating 47 of the 48 suit premises albeit without having restored them,” the judge noted.
The court also recognised that the original judgment created a clear and binding obligation on the bank to both vacate and restore the properties within a defined period.
“It’s also important to note that the orders of court especially under (j) were to be performed within a prescribed time of three months,” Justice Emokor observed.
Significantly, the judge underscored a key legal principle that strengthens Meera’s position: the filing of an appeal does not in itself suspend a court decree.
“The filing of an appeal does not suspend the execution of a court decree,” the ruling states.
The court further noted that as of June 11, 2024, when Meera through its lawyers forwarded the bills of quantities for restoration costs, the obligation to comply with the judgment had not yet been suspended.
“At this point on 11th June 2024, the obligation to comply with the Judgment and orders of the Court had not been suspended on the Respondent.”
The restoration costs were assessed by a registered quantity surveyor, Oscar C. Walubi of Buildcost Associates, who inspected the properties together with representatives of both parties and prepared bills of quantities detailing the cost of restoring the premises to a tenable condition.
The total cost of restoration was computed at Shs33,984,823,298 plus 18 percent VAT amounting to Shs6,117,268,194, bringing the total to Shs40,102,091,492.
While the court declined to find DFCU in contempt on account of a subsisting stay of execution pending appeal, the substantive declarations in favour of Meera Investments remain intact. The confirmation of Meera’s registered ownership, the finding of trespass, the cancellation of leasehold interests and the permanent injunction continue to stand unless overturned on appeal.
The ruling therefore preserves the core judgment that established Meera Investments’ proprietary rights over the properties, reinforcing its legal position as the registered owner entitled to vacant possession and restoration in accordance with the court’s decree.