By Spy Uganda
Bank of Uganda has lost an application in which it was intending to shut the mouth of Greenland Bank shareholders from demanding their dubiously sold bank.
For starters, in February 2022, shareholders of Greenland Bank petitioned the court seeking a declaration that the continued liquidation of their bank for more than twenty-one (21) years without accountability is irregular, unreasonable and in bad faith. They, therefore, wanted an order requiring the Bank of Uganda to fully account to the respondents for the entire period it has been liquidating their Bank.
The shareholders also sought a declaration that the sale of secured and unsecured loans of their Bank by the BoU to M/s Nile River Acquisition Company was unlawful, irregular, fraudulent and in bad faith.
Further, shareholders wanted a declaration that the sale of loans from their Bank at a discount of 93% was irregular, fraudulent and in bad faith.
”A declaration that the entire process of liquidation of the 2nd applicant is marred by massive fraudulent acts committed by officials of the 1st 25 applicants; a declaration that properties belonging to the 2nd applicant, to wit Plot 30 on Kampala Road and Plot 66 William Street, were sold below the market value and that the sale was irregular and in bad
faith; a declaration that the consolidation of all companies under the “Greenland Group of companies” and their assets was irregular and in bad faith,” shareholders further prayed to Court.
However, the Central Bank also rushed to Court seeking an order trashing the shareholders’ application based on the preliminary point of law; for being barred by limitation and not disclosing a cause of action.
Meanwhile, after listening from both sides, the Commercial Division of the High Court delivered a ruling inked by Justice Stephen Mubiru on grounds that the BoU’s application was incompetent.
“The application is incompetent in as far as it concerns matters of facts majorly that require evidence and investigation by this Court which cannot be dealt with as preliminary points of law. The suit is neither barred by limitation, res judicata nor is it frivolous and vexatious,” reads a ruling delivered by
The ruling adds, “Since the determination of the issue of limitation in this case in respect of the rest of the claims is not a pure question of law, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The rest of the objections, therefore, stand overruled. The costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the suit.”
