Court blocks sale of businessman Sentongo’s property over Shs34b loan
Mr Haruna Sentongo
What you need to know:
- The properties, owned by Mr Sentongo and his Haruna Enterprises, are being pursued by Diamond Trust Bank Uganda and Diamond Trust Bank Kenya over recovery of more than Shs34b.
The Court of Appeal has temporarily stopped the sale of businessman Haruna Sentongo’s property.
The properties, which are owned by Mr Sentongo and his Haruna Enterprises, are being pursued by Diamond Trust Bank Uganda and Diamond Trust Bank Kenya over recovery of more than Shs34b.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Oscar John Kihika, the court noted that since Mr Sentongo was in possession of the mortgaged property, with various tenants carrying out business, the sale would be detrimental before final disposal of the main case. “An order of a temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining [DTB Uganda and Kenya] … from selling ... the applicant’s (Mr Sentongo) interest and possession of the properties comprised in Block 12 Plots 538, 826 and 898 at Mengo until the determination of his appeal,” Justice Kihika ordered
Court documents indicate that Mr Sentongo had sought a temporary injunction pending disposal of an appeal, which he, and his Haruna Enterprises had filed challenging the sale of his property.
“It is, therefore, my considered view that the applicant has established that he has a prima facie case pending determination before this court,” Justice Kihika ruled.
Court documents indicate that Mr Sentongo and his company are bound by the security realization agreement, which placed them in indebtedness to the bank to the tune of Shs9.8b due to DTB Uganda and $6.6m (Shs25b) due to DTB Kenya.
Court heard that Mr Sentongo acquired the disputed land in 2014, taking him about five years to build a market, which he named after his mother, Nakayiza.
Therefore, Mr Sentongo argued that he has a sentimental attachment to the property, which cannot be compensated if the property is sold. He further argued that the same property was the subject of an appeal, which was yet to be disposed of.
Thus, Justice Kihika observed that Mr Sentongo’s case was never heard on its merits because it was dismissed for failure to file a trial bundle within the stipulated timelines, noting that the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if he is condemned unheard contrary to the Constitution under which the right to a fair hearing is non-derogable.
Validity
The injunction will remain valid until determination of Mr Sentongo’s appeal, in which he is challenging the dismissal of his case.
