The High Court Commercial Division has dismissed an application by Dei Industries International Ltd, Dei Biopharma Ltd and businessman Matthias Magoola seeking to revoke an earlier court order that appointed the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda (ICPAU) to nominate an independent auditor in their loan dispute with Equity Bank Uganda and Equity Bank Kenya.
In a ruling delivered on July 29, Justice Susan Abinyo held that the application lacked merit and noted that the applicants failed to prove allegations that ICPAU’s integrity, objectivity and independence had been compromised during the auditor selection process.
The court also rejected the applicants’ request for leave to amend their plaint, ruling that the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondents, alter the nature of the case and unnecessarily delay its disposal.
“Consequently, this application is dismissed with costs in the cause. The suit is fixed on 13th November, 2026 at 9:00 am for scheduling,” Justice Abinyo ruled.
The dispute stems from Civil Suit No. 929 of 2024, in which the Dei companies sued Equity Bank Uganda and Equity Bank Kenya seeking, among other remedies, a comprehensive reconciliation of their loan accounts to determine the actual amount owed, recover what they allege were unlawful debits and restrain the bank from enforcing recovery measures until the case is concluded.
In December 2024, the parties had, by consent, appointed KPMG to conduct an audit of the disputed loan accounts. However, that appointment was later set aside after another court application, with the court directing ICPAU to nominate an independent audit firm instead. ICPAU subsequently appointed Clayton & Company, which carried out the audit and submitted its report to court in June 2025.
Magoola and his companies later returned to court seeking to revoke ICPAU’s appointment, alleging that the institute’s independence had been compromised and asking the court to allow them to amend their pleadings.
However, Justice Abinyo found that the application had effectively been overtaken by events because the court order had already been implemented and the audit completed.
“This Court finds that this application is moot, and amounts to abuse of Court process because of the purpose of this application… seeks orders to set aside the process, which was already established,” the judge held.
The applicants had also challenged the affidavit filed by the respondents, arguing that it was incompetent because it had been sworn by the bank’s Head of Legal, Elizabeth Nayiga Wamala.
But the court rejected that argument, holding that the deponent was competent to swear the affidavit because the matters she addressed were within her personal knowledge acquired through her role and review of relevant documents.
“This Court finds that the above statement… was made out of her personal knowledge… gained through observation of the documents,” Justice Abinyo ruled, adding that the affidavit complied with the Civil Procedure Rules.
On the allegation that ICPAU’s independence had been compromised, the court said the burden rested on the applicants to prove their claims but they failed to adduce sufficient evidence.
“The burden of proof is on the Applicants to adduce evidence to prove the said allegations… which was not done to the satisfaction of this Court on the required standard of proof, which is on a balance of probabilities,” the judge said.
Justice Abinyo further ruled that there was no legal basis to revoke ICPAU’s appointment since the allegations against the professional body remained unsubstantiated.
The court also declined to allow amendments to the plaintiff, holding that they would prejudice the respondents and introduce unnecessary delays.
According to the judge, the applicants can still present evidence of payments made after the suit was filed during the trial, making the proposed amendments unnecessary.
“The purpose for the amendment is prejudicial to the Respondents… the Applicants can adduce evidence of any payments that have been made after the suit was filed during trial,” Justice Abinyo said.
She added that permitting parties to amend pleadings whenever new developments arise would set a very bad precedent by delaying the disposal of cases.
