The past five years have not gone particularly well for Uganda’s billionaire class. Once the undisputed symbols of local enterprise and ambition, several of the country’s most prominent businessmen have found themselves entangled in complex financial and legal battles — most of them involving commercial banks and cross-border lenders.
Among them, Hamis Kiggundu, the property and retail magnate behind Ham Enterprises, waged one of Uganda’s most closely watched banking disputes. His companies owed USD 4,014,444 to Diamond Trust Bank Uganda and USD 6,974,600 to Diamond Trust Bank Kenya — a combined USD 10.99 million (approximately UGX 40 billion) in credit facilities extended between 2011 and 2016.
Kiggundu accused the two banks of unlawfully withdrawing funds from his accounts and challenged the legality of DTB Kenya’s lending in Uganda. His four-year legal fight, which moved from the Commercial Court in 2020 to the Supreme Court in 2023, ended in defeat after the highest court ruled that syndicated lending and cross-border credit are lawful and enforceable under Ugandan law.
Following the ruling, Kiggundu reportedly reached a settlement with DTB and resumed repayments — bringing to a quiet close one of Uganda’s most publicised corporate showdowns.
But as Kiggundu moves to rebuild, other billionaire businessmen are still in the trenches. Hassan Basajjabalaba, Patrick Bitature, and Matthias Magoola remain locked in high-stakes disputes with their financiers — collectively involving hundreds of billions of shillings and assets that underpin some of Uganda’s most recognisable brands.
Their ongoing courtroom battles are exposing the growing tension between ambition and accountability in corporate Uganda — where old habits of political leverage and informal negotiation are giving way to a new order governed by contracts, compliance, and the courts.
Hassan Basajjabalaba: The UGX 80 Billion Reckoning
For businessman and education magnate Hassan Basajjabalaba, 2025 could determine the future of his family’s flagship enterprise — Kampala International University (KIU) — and perhaps the stability of his broader business empire.
At the centre of the dispute is a loan agreement dating back to 2014, when KIU obtained a USD 15 million facility from the Housing Finance Company of Kenya (HFCK) to construct its modern campus in Kitengela, Nairobi. The bank disbursed USD 10 million in January 2014 and a further USD 1.3 million in November 2014, both secured against the Kitengela property.
By 2017, relations had broken down. HFCK accused KIU of defaulting on repayments, while KIU alleged that the bank had failed to release the full loan amount and had altered terms midstream. The dispute went to arbitration in Nairobi, where, in September 2019, the arbitrator ruled in HFCK’s favour — ordering KIU to pay USD 12.77 million plus compound interest at 9.5% per annum from January 2018, within 30 days.
KIU’s bid to set aside the award in Kenya failed. The High Court of Kenya upheld the debt but adjusted the repayment timeline, and subsequent appeals to the Kenyan Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were dismissed. By 2024, HFCK had begun advertising the Kitengela campus property for sale to recover the debt.
Instead of waiting for the slow foreclosure process in Kenya, HFCK sought to enforce the award in Uganda, where KIU’s main operations — and cash flows — are located. In March 2025, the Commercial Division of the High Court of Uganda recognised the Nairobi arbitral award as enforceable “in the same manner as a judgment of the High Court of Uganda.” A month later, in April 2025, the court dismissed KIU’s application for a stay of execution, clearing the way for enforcement in Uganda.
On May 5, 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, rejecting KIU’s argument that HFCK’s enforcement actions in both Kenya and Uganda amounted to “double recovery.” The case is now before the Supreme Court, where KIU is seeking to halt enforcement, arguing that simultaneous recovery could cripple its operations.
At the core lies a ballooning obligation: the arbitral award of USD 12.77 million (UGX 44.7 billion) in 2019 has grown, with interest compounded at 9.5% per annum, to approximately USD 22.8 million (UGX 80 billion) by late 2025 — a figure that continues to rise by roughly UGX 650 million per month.
If the Supreme Court upholds enforcement, HFCK could move to attach KIU’s Ugandan tuition accounts, hospital revenues, or even real estate holdings. Such a step would directly hit the financial core of the Basajjabalaba business network — whose holdings span education, healthcare, tea exports, and real estate.
For perspective, the UGX 80 billion exposure is roughly equivalent to the entire annual revenue of a major private university, meaning recovery could instantly destabilise KIU’s cash flow. It’s a case that not only tests one man’s empire but could also set a precedent for how Uganda enforces foreign arbitral awards — balancing lender rights against local economic stability.
Patrick Bitature: The USD 10 Million Loan That Threatens a Business Empire and Reputation
For years, Patrick Bitature was celebrated as one of Uganda’s most disciplined and visionary entrepreneurs — the self-made face of local capitalism. His Simba Group, spanning telecommunications, hospitality, energy, and real estate, epitomised ambition and diversification. But a single deal gone sour — a USD 10 million mezzanine loan from Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership of South Africa — now threatens to unravel much of what he built.
The facility, extended in December 2014 to Simba Properties Investment Company Ltd (SPIC), was meant to refinance ongoing projects and fund expansion, secured against some of the group’s most valuable assets, including Skyz Hotel Naguru, and guaranteed by associated companies — Simba Telecom, Elgon Terrace Hotel, and Linda Properties. The financing was structured as a convertible mezzanine loan, carrying both high returns and equity conversion rights if the borrower defaulted.
By 2019, repayment had stalled, and the loan went into default. Vantage initiated arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London, resulting in an award in its favour in July 2023. The Court of Appeal of Uganda later confirmed that the principal facility was USD 10 million, and that as of August 2025, no repayment had been made. While the ruling did not specify the total recoverable amount, analysts estimate that with accumulated interest, penalties, and enforcement costs, Bitature’s liability could now exceed USD 25–30 million (UGX 95–115 billion) — roughly three times the original loan.
dfcu Bank and Monitor Publications Crown Season 7 Rising Woman Champions, Celebrating Uganda’s Top Women EntrepreneursThis exposure is not abstract. The court confirmed that nearly all key Simba Group assets are tied to the facility through mortgage and share charges, giving Vantage broad enforcement latitude. That includes Skyz Hotel Naguru, estimated at UGX 130 billion, as well as properties in Kololo, Nakasero, and other upscale Kampala neighbourhoods. The Court of Appeal’s ruling of 8 August 2025 cleared the way for Vantage to execute the arbitral award, meaning share transfers, asset sales, or management takeovers can proceed under Uganda’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
If enforced in full, the ruling could dismantle much of Bitature’s wealth base and strip him of flagship assets that define his public profile. His estimated net worth — once believed to hover around USD 50–70 million — could decline sharply, given that most of his holdings are cross-pledged within the same credit structure. Beyond the numbers, the case represents a humbling reversal for a businessman long seen as a model of financial prudence and corporate leadership.
Matthias Magoola: The UGX 243 Billion Debt That Could Stall Uganda’s Pharmaceutical Dream
When Matthias Magoola broke ground on the Dei Biopharma industrial complex in Matugga, he was hailed as a national hero — a visionary determined to turn Uganda into a regional hub for pharmaceutical manufacturing. Backed by both private lenders and the state, his project symbolised the promise of local innovation and self-reliance. Yet, a few years later, that same dream is mired in one of Uganda’s most complex corporate debt disputes, threatening not only Magoola’s fortune but the very future of the country’s most ambitious industrial investment.
Between 2016 and 2021, Magoola’s companies — Dei Biopharma Ltd and Dei Industries International Ltd — secured a series of loans from Equity Bank Uganda and Equity Bank Kenya to finance plant construction, equipment imports, and working capital. By mid-2021, these facilities totalled approximately UGX 243.25 billion (USD 65 million), broken down as UGX 82.24 billion lent by Equity Uganda and USD 43.23 million by Equity Kenya. The borrowing was complemented by additional credit lines worth UGX 54.78 billion, USD 3 million in letters of credit, and UGX 2.59 billion in working capital.
To support the same project, Magoola also obtained USD 20 million (UGX 74 billion) from the Uganda Development Bank (UDB) and a separate facility from Tropical Bank, raising total cumulative borrowing to over UGX 289 billion (USD 75 million). In 2022, the Government of Uganda further injected UGX 578.4 billion in capital support, partly intended to clear existing bank loans and accelerate completion of the Matugga plant. However, despite the state funding, Equity Bank maintains that the loans remain unpaid and, in June 2024, sued Dei Biopharma to recover the entire UGX 243 billion exposure.
Magoola counters that the loans were inflated by overcharges of UGX 47.65 billion, and that Equity engaged in predatory lending and fraudulent accounting. His legal team — Muwema & Co. Advocates and Joska Advocates — has filed suit (HCCS No. 929 of 2024) seeking injunctions against recovery and the return of alleged overpaid sums. In a June 2024 settlement proposal, Dei Biopharma offered UGX 155.12 billion (USD 42 million) as a final settlement — UGX 45 billion to Equity Uganda and USD 29 million to Equity Kenya — but the bank rejected it, insisting on full repayment or a 30% deposit before litigation could continue.
The implications are severe. The Matugga Biopharma complex, valued at roughly USD 300 million and reportedly 75–80% complete, risks being stalled indefinitely if the case drags on or if Equity enforces its securities. The plant — envisioned to produce vaccines, oncology drugs, and essential generics — has already faced multiple commissioning delays as contractors, suppliers, and staff await financial clarity. If enforcement proceeds, Equity could seize bank accounts, halt supplier payments, and auction assets, effectively crippling operations before full commercialisation.
For the government, which holds a 9.1% equity stake in Dei Biopharma, the stakes are equally high. A default or foreclosure would not only erode public investment worth UGX 578 billion but also deal a symbolic blow to Uganda’s industrialisation agenda. Meanwhile, for Magoola personally, the case threatens to erode his reputation as Uganda’s poster child for homegrown manufacturing success — transforming his story from that of a visionary builder to another cautionary tale of corporate debt and overreach.
The Crossroads of Fortune and Legacy
Public opinion, too, is sharply divided. Some see these tycoons as genuinely wronged entrepreneurs caught in the squeeze between ambition and a tightening global credit regime. Others believe they are buying time through legal manoeuvres, using endless court processes to delay repayment — much as Hamis Kiggundu did before eventually settling with his lenders after years of litigation. The line between legal defence and tactical delay has never been thinner.
Each of these men stands at a defining crossroads.
Basajjabalaba, long associated with Uganda’s private education and healthcare growth, risks losing the very institutions that cemented his business empire. Patrick Bitature, once regarded as the poster face of corporate success and prudent entrepreneurship, faces potential disintegration of his Simba Group holdings under creditor enforcement. And Matthias Magoola, a promising yet controversial pharmapreneur, once hailed as the face of Uganda’s industrial promise, is now fighting to keep the Dei Biopharma dream alive — a venture whose life-changing “made-in-Uganda” promise has been as inspiring as it has been mired in financial controversy.
Between them, these three billionaires represent billions of shillings in cumulative exposure, decades of leveraged growth, and reputations painstakingly built through confidence, connections, and at times controversy. Their struggles are not only reshaping Uganda’s investment climate but also putting the judiciary itself on trial — testing whether the country’s much-vaunted judicial independence and commitment to the rule of law can withstand the weight of wealth and political influence. A clean victory for creditors would reaffirm that Uganda’s courts can uphold contracts over connections, restoring investor confidence and attracting long-term capital. But if cases drag on indefinitely or appear selectively enforced, that optimism could quickly erode, deepening doubts about predictability, impartiality, and transparency within Uganda’s financial and legal systems.
When the gavels finally fall in these cases, they will not simply close legal chapters; they will redraw the contours of Uganda’s corporate landscape — determining who survives, who surrenders, and who triumphs.
Yet, given the deep political ties and economic significance of these business empires, it would not be entirely surprising if the government quietly stepped in — whether through restructuring, mediation, or an outright rescue.
Ultimately, these battles are about more than debt and contracts. They are about what kind of economy Uganda chooses to become — one ruled by the rule of law and financial prudence, or one still tempted to protect the powerful when the costs of accountability become too high.
