The High Court (Land Division) has dismissed an application by Meera Investments Limited seeking to have DFCU Bank held in contempt of court over alleged failure to restore several properties and pay restoration costs estimated at about shs 40 billion.
In a ruling delivered on January 2, 2026, Justice Samuel Emokor found that although Meera Investments had earlier secured judgment confirming its ownership of the disputed properties and ordering DFCU to vacate and restore them, the bank could not be cited for contempt because execution of the judgment had lawfully been stayed pending appeal.
The application arose from a 2023 judgment in which the High Court declared that DFCU’s continued occupation of the properties amounted to trespass and ordered the bank to vacate and restore them to a tenantable condition within three months. While DFCU later handed over possession of 47 out of 48 properties, Meera Investments argued that the premises had not been restored and sought to compel payment of restoration costs amounting to shs 40.1 billion, based on bills of quantities prepared by an independent surveyor.
Meera Investments further contended that DFCU had neither appealed nor obtained a valid stay in respect of the restoration order and was therefore in contempt of court.
However, DFCU countered that it had appealed the judgment and obtained both an interim administrative stay and a substantive stay of execution, which suspended its obligation to comply with the remaining unexecuted parts of the decree, including restoration and payment of costs.
In his ruling, Justice Emokor agreed with DFCU’s position, holding that the administrative interim stay issued in November 2023 and the subsequent stay of execution granted in July 2024 effectively halted further execution of the judgment pending determination of the appeal. The court rejected the argument that the stay did not apply to restoration, noting that the stay covered the “remaining part of execution,” which included restoration obligations.
The judge emphasized that contempt proceedings require proof of willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order, and found that DFCU’s non-compliance was lawful in light of the existing stay orders. As a result, the court declined to consider the request for consequential orders compelling payment of the shs 40 billion restoration costs.
The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
Importantly, the ruling does not determine the merits of the shs 40 billion restoration claim itself. That issue remains subject to the outcome of DFCU’s pending appeal, meaning the dispute between the parties is not yet finally resolved.