High Court Upholds Meera’s Rights Over Prime Properties in DFCU Case

The long running property dispute between Meera Investments Limited and DFCU Bank has taken another decisive turn, with the High Court Land Division reaffirming Meera’s ownership of dozens of prime properties across the country and underscoring the binding nature of its earlier orders.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Samuel Emokor on January 2, 2026, the court revisited its substantive judgment of October 24, 2023 in Civil Suit No. 948 of 2017, where Meera Investments had successfully challenged the bank’s continued occupation of the contested premises. The judge made it clear that the core findings of that decision remain undisturbed.

In the 2023 judgment, the court declared that the bank’s occupation and continued utilisation of the properties amounted to trespass and affirmed Meera Investments as the registered proprietor of the freehold and Mailo interests in the suit properties. The court ordered the bank to vacate and hand over vacant possession within three months, after restoring the premises to a tenable condition. It also directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to cancel leasehold titles that had emanated from the properties and issued a permanent injunction restraining the bank and its agents from further interference.

The latest proceedings focused largely on compliance. According to the ruling, the bank vacated 47 out of the 48 premises as ordered, although restoration works had not been completed. Justice Emokor observed that the original decree imposed a clear and time bound obligation not only to vacate but also to restore the properties within three months of the judgment.

“It is important to note that the orders of court were to be performed within a prescribed time,” the judge stated, emphasising that compliance was not optional or open ended.

A central question before the court was whether the filing of an appeal shielded the bank from implementing the decree. Justice Emokor reiterated a well established legal principle that the mere filing of an appeal does not suspend execution of a court order unless a stay is expressly granted. As of June 11, 2024, when Meera’s lawyers submitted bills of quantities detailing restoration costs, there was no suspension in place.

“At that point, the obligation to comply with the judgment and orders of the court had not been suspended,” the ruling noted.

The restoration costs were assessed by registered quantity surveyor Oscar C Walubi of Buildcost Associates, who inspected the properties in the presence of representatives from both parties. The assessment placed the cost of restoring the premises at Shs33.9 billion, with VAT bringing the total to just over Shs40.1 billion.

Although the court declined to cite the bank for contempt due to a subsisting stay of execution pending appeal, it firmly maintained the substantive declarations in favour of Meera Investments. The confirmation of ownership, the finding of trespass, the cancellation of leasehold interests and the permanent injunction all remain in force unless overturned by a higher court.

Legal observers say the ruling reinforces the sanctity of registered property rights and the authority of court decrees. One Kampala based advocate noted that the decision sends a signal that “compliance with court orders is not automatically put on hold simply because an appeal has been filed.”

For Meera Investments, the reaffirmation consolidates a legal victory that has been years in the making. For the banking sector and the broader business community, the case underscores the weight courts attach to land registration records and the consequences of non compliance with judicial directives. As the appeal process unfolds, the High Court’s message is unmistakable: its earlier judgment stands, and the rights it declared remain firmly protected under the law.