KAMPALA – Lawyers representing Dei BioPharma Ltd, Dei Industries International Ltd and Dr Matthias Magoola have issued a stinging criticism of Equity Bank Uganda for acting with “active malice and utmost bad faith” by publishing a notice of intended sale of their clients’ properties, even as court-ordered audit and reconciliation processes remain unresolved and a stay of proceedings is in force.
The lawyers accuse Equity Bank of hiding behind the purported notice to circumvent the challenge against Equity Bank’s predatory lending practices, including inflated principal and interest balances, irregular consolidations during restructurings, and a “fraudulent false accounting scheme”, all before court, whose outcome is yet to be determined.
In an advert published in New Vision and other dailies on Monday November 9, Muwema & Co. Advocates and Solicitors said the notice, issued on 5 November 2026 by auctioneers Jald (U) Ltd on the instructions of the Equity Bank Group, purports to recover outstanding loan balances, interest and fees against a portfolio of properties.
These include industrial and commercial land at Matugga (Kyadondo Block 82), plots at Kyamuli-Kungu, Luzira, Katwe, Muyenga-Kisugu, Kitende and Seguku.
The lawyers contend that no legitimate outstanding loan balance or interest has been ultimately established that can validly be recovered against the properties.
They describe the sale notice as an attempt to “illegally thwart and pre-empt” an independent and transparent loan audit process that the banks have “consistently undermined and resisted.”
Because the audit process ordered to determine the actual debt (if any) has not been concluded and adopted by court, they argue the notice cannot pass good title to any intending buyer.
The dispute originates from credit facilities advanced between 2016 and 2021, principally to finance Dei BioPharma’s pharmaceutical manufacturing project at Matugga in Wakiso District, a venture that has also attracted substantial government investment.
In August 2024 the companies filed High Court Civil Suit No. 929 of 2024, challenging Equity’s demand for approximately UGX 82 billion and US$43 million.
They alleged predatory lending practices, including inflated principal and interest balances, irregular consolidations during restructurings, and a “fraudulent false accounting scheme.”
In the spirit of settlement, the parties entered a consent order on 10 December 2024 appointing KPMG to conduct a comprehensive audit. The lawyers say the banks later concealed a conflict of interest arising from an ongoing business relationship with KPMG.
After a successful challenge, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda (ICPAU) was directed to nominate an independent firm; Clayton & Co. was subsequently appointed. The companies objected, alleging the process was compromised by the banks’ secret engagement with ICPAU, and filed HCMA No. 1121 of 2025.
They further claim that in December 2024 the banks induced them to pay UGX 120 billion (about US$30 million) with a promise of refinancing that was never honoured.
Despite the pending application, Clayton & Co. issued a report in June 2025 placing the clients’ indebtedness at approximately US$35.9 million as of 28 June 2025.
The High Court dismissed the challenge to the audit process on 29 July 2026. The companies appealed. On 9 September 2026 the Court of Appeal stayed all proceedings in the High Court suit pending determination of the appeal challenging the compromised audit report and restrained the banks from relying on it in the interim.
In their conclusion, the lawyers state that the notice of intended sale is “neither justified nor lawful” and constitutes a continuation of what they term the Equity Bank Group’s “predatory and unethical behaviour calculated to circumvent the judicial process.”
They warn the public that any participation in the purported auction “shall be at their own grave risk” and say they will seek appropriate legal sanctions against the banks and their agents.
The underlying commercial suit remains stayed, and the Court of Appeal has yet to determine the substantive challenge to the audit process that has been at the centre of the dispute for more than a year.
