The High Court’s Land Division has reaffirmed its earlier decision in favor of Meera Investments Limited, once again upholding the company’s ownership of numerous high-value properties nationwide in its legal battle with DFCU Bank.
In a ruling issued on January 2, 2026, by Justice Samuel Emokor in Miscellaneous Application No. 1615 of 2024, the court revisited its main judgment delivered on October 24, 2023, in Civil Suit No. 948 of 2017, where Meera Investments had prevailed.
In that earlier judgment, the court determined that DFCU Bank’s continued occupation and use of the contested properties amounted to trespass. It also confirmed that Meera Investments Limited is the duly registered owner of the freehold and Mailo interests attached to the properties.
The court ordered the bank to vacate all the disputed premises and hand back vacant possession to Meera within three months of the judgment, after restoring them to a habitable and usable condition.
Additionally, the decree instructed the Commissioner for Land Registration to nullify DFCU’s leasehold registration on the properties and cancel all leasehold titles derived from them. A permanent injunction was also granted, barring the bank, along with its agents and representatives, from any further trespass.
In the most recent proceedings, the court acknowledged that DFCU had complied in part with the directive to vacate, surrendering 47 out of the 48 properties to Meera Investments. However, the judge noted that although the premises were handed over, they had not been restored as required.
Justice Emokor emphasized that the original ruling imposed a clear obligation on the bank to both vacate and rehabilitate the properties within the specified three-month period.
He further highlighted an important legal principle reinforcing Meera’s position: lodging an appeal does not automatically halt the enforcement of a court order. The ruling made it clear that the mere filing of an appeal does not suspend execution of a decree.
The court observed that as of June 11, 2024 when Meera’s legal team submitted the bills of quantities detailing restoration costs the bank’s duty to comply with the judgment had not been put on hold.
The restoration expenses were calculated by registered quantity surveyor Oscar C. Walubi of Buildcost Associates. After inspecting the properties in the presence of representatives from both sides, he prepared detailed bills of quantities outlining the cost of returning the premises to a functional state.
The total restoration cost was assessed at Shs33,984,823,298, with an additional 18 percent VAT of Shs6,117,268,194, bringing the overall figure to Shs40,102,091,492.
Although the court declined to hold DFCU in contempt due to an existing stay of execution pending appeal, the fundamental findings in favor of Meera Investments remain unaffected. The confirmation of Meera’s ownership, the ruling that the bank trespassed, the cancellation of leasehold interests, and the permanent injunction all remain valid unless overturned by a higher court.
As a result, the latest ruling preserves the essence of the original judgment, reinforcing Meera Investments’ legal standing as the registered owner entitled to vacant possession and restoration of the properties in line with the court’s directives.
