In 2012, Shamilah Nakalule and her husband took a loan of Shs 700 million from DFCU Bank. They secured it using several plots of land, including a piece of land at Najjera.
Three years later, in 2014, Standard Chartered Bank took over the loan and repaid Shs 600 million. They signed an agreement, and by 2017, she claims to have repaid the entire loan.
For years, she believed the matter was closed.
But on August 13, 2025, she was shocked to see her Najjera property advertised for sale by the bank. The bank claimed she was still indebted and planned to auction the land 30 days after the notice.
Alarmed, she sued the bank and asked the court to declare that she owed nothing and that the attempt to sell her land was unlawful. She also filed an urgent application asking the court to stop the sale until the main case is heard.
In her affidavit, Nakalule said bluntly that she was not indebted to the bank. She said the bank’s actions were “fraudulent” and would cause her irreparable harm.
She told the court she has repeatedly asked Standard Chartered for bank statements so she could understand the transactions, but the bank “deliberately refused” to give them to her.
Without those statements, she said, the bank’s claim that she owes money cannot be trusted.
She also said the agreement she signed in 2018, which the bank uses as proof that she acknowledged the debt, was made “under duress after being cornered”.
Her lawyer, Ronald Tumusime, argued that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to “preserve the status quo” so that the case is not rendered useless before it is heard. He said Nakalule had a strong case and faced “irreparable damage” if the land was sold.
But Standard Chartered Bank said Nakalule’s story was fictitious. In its affidavit, sworn by collections team leader Rose Tamale, the bank said Nakalule still owes Shs 672 million.
The bank argued that she has been in default for years and that the loan of Shs 700 million, dating to 2014, remained largely unpaid. It said she breached the repayment schedule and that it was entitled to exercise its rights as a mortgage holder.
The bank also said it has repeatedly issued default notices and even entered a repayment agreement with Nakalule and a third party in 2018, but they still failed to pay.
The bank attempted to push the matter further by claiming that Nakalule no longer owned the land because a man named Francis Xavier Yiga lodged a caveat claiming to be a buyer.
Bank of Baroda ordered to release Shs 20 million to 92-year-old widow for medical needs
Justice Susan Odongo carefully analysed these competing claims. On the question of whether Nakalule still had the right to sue, the judge firmly disagreed with the bank.
She said the certificate of title “clearly demonstrates that the suit property continues to be registered in Nakalule’s name”.
On the question of whether the sale had already taken place, the bank had argued the matter was now pointless because it had accepted a bidder, Yiga.
But Odongo said, “I find no proof that Standard Chartered Bank has transferred the suit property to a third party.”
On the 30% rule, which requires that when a borrower wants to stop a sale, they must deposit 30% of either the outstanding amount or the forced sale value, the judge said the bank had a fair point.
She added that once the court grants an injunction delaying a sale, the obligation by Nakalule to deposit 30% of the loan under contestation “automatically arises”.
Despite all these arguments, the judge concluded that Nakalule had met the requirements for an injunction. She said the land should be preserved while the main case is heard.
She wrote that the case raises serious questions about the loan, the alleged default, and the legality of the bank’s attempt to sell the land.
So, Nakalule will keep her land for now, but only if she pays a significant sum soon (30% of the loan).
Nakalule’s case is not unusual in a country like Uganda, where many families borrow small or large sums and use their only property as security.
When disputes arise, most borrowers feel powerless against the financial institutions that hold their titles. Using their legal and financial experts, the institutions calculate figures that many averagely educated borrowers cannot easily verify or contest.
Indeed, many borrowers have lost their security (usually land) either because they cannot afford lawyers or because they do not understand the terms attached to their loans.
