The High Court in Kampala has ordered former presidential aide Dr Elizabeth Nabatanzi Lugudde to pay dfcu Bank Shs165.7 million after finding that she fraudulently presented her brother-in-law as her husband to secure a Shs20 million overdraft using land belonging to her real husband as collateral.
In a judgment delivered on October 27, 2026, Justice Stephen Mubiru of the Commercial Division held that Nabatanzi deliberately misrepresented the identity of the man who appeared before the bank to execute mortgage documents for land in Lungujja, Kampala.
The case arose from a Shs20 million overdraft facility obtained on September 25, 2008, to finance the transportation of merchandise to South Sudan.
Court records show that Nabatanzi presented a certificate of title for land registered in the name of her husband, Samwiri Lugudde Kanyike Katwe, as security for the facility. However, the man who appeared alongside her and purported to be Katwe was identified as her brother-in-law, Moses Kamya.
The bank later discovered that the genuine landowner had not personally consented to the mortgage, triggering a dispute that eventually exposed the circumstances under which the loan had been obtained.
Nabatanzi admitted that she had presented another person in place of her husband but maintained that the arrangement had been made with his knowledge and consent. She argued that Katwe had personally handed her the land title to facilitate the loan.
However, Justice Mubiru dismissed the explanation, saying the alleged consent of her husband did not justify deceiving the bank by presenting another person to execute the mortgage documents.
“The defendant’s defence hinges on the assertion that her husband Mr Samwiri Lugudde Kanyike Katwe consented to the transaction and personally handed over the title; and she sets up an absurd defence: that she substituted another man to act as her husband with her husband’s consent,” the judge observed.
He added that the admission itself established fraudulent misrepresentation because Nabatanzi had knowingly presented a person who was not the registered proprietor of the land as her husband.
The judge further rejected her argument that an earlier acquittal in criminal proceedings over the transaction absolved her of responsibility, explaining that the standards of proof in criminal and civil cases are different.
“The evidentiary burden in the civil case is different and less onerous,” Mubiru held.
The dispute escalated after Nabatanzi failed to repay the overdraft, which was supposed to be cleared within 60 days and attracted annual interest of 25 per cent.
She told court that the business had suffered losses after a truck transporting merchandise to South Sudan was involved in an accident along the Gulu Highway, disrupting operations and making it difficult to repay the money.
The judge rejected the explanation, holding that business losses and destruction of commercial assets did not extinguish the borrower’s contractual obligation to repay a loan.
Following the default, dfcu Bank moved to recover its money by enforcing the mortgage and eventually sold the disputed property to Peter Ivor Page and Beatrice Loiza Nakaye Page for Shs26 million on March 25, 2010.
The sale, however, triggered further legal battles after Katwe challenged the transaction, insisting that he had neither authorised the mortgage nor consented to the sale of his property.
The bank subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement with Katwe, paying Shs11.5 million, while another settlement involving the auction purchasers cost the lender Shs50 million.
It also incurred additional legal and bailiff expenses while dealing with the disputes arising from the contested mortgage.
In the suit, dfcu Bank sought to recover the outstanding loan and Shs97.4 million in expenses arising from the subsequent litigation. However, the court established that Shs71.86 million of the claimed consequential damages had been sufficiently proved.
Justice Mubiru found that the legal expenses and settlements were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the fraudulent representation, making Nabatanzi liable for the losses incurred by the bank.
The court consequently awarded dfcu Bank Shs83.832 million in outstanding debt, Shs71.859 million in consequential damages and Shs10 million in exemplary damages, bringing the total award to Shs165,691,392, excluding further interest and costs.
The outstanding debt will attract annual interest of 25 per cent from July 1, 2021, while the consequential damages will attract interest at the same rate from May 23, 2012, until full payment. The Shs10 million exemplary damages will attract annual interest of six per cent from the date of judgment.
The judge also ordered Nabatanzi to meet the costs of the suit, bringing the long-running dispute over the 2008 overdraft to a conclusion in favour of the bank.
