KAMPALA – Youthful tycoon Hamis Kiggundu has asked the Commercial Division of the High Court to throw out the defense evidence presented by Diamond Trust Bank in a row involving the two parties
Mr. Kiggundu, the proprietor of Ham Enterprises Limited and Kiggs International (U) limited dragged DTB-Uganda and DTB-Kenya to Commercial Court for allegedly siphoning over UGX120b from his accounts without his knowledge and consent.
In its defense, DTB argues that Ham Enterprise Limited is indebted to a tune of $6,298,380 on a term loan facility of $6,663,453, sh2.8 billion on the demand overdraft facility of sh1.5 billion, temporary demand overdraft facility of sh1b, 3,662,241 on the term loan facility of $4,000,000 and 4458,604 on the term loan facility of $500,000.
But Mr. Kiggundu’s lawyers led by Fred Muwema have since filed an application, asking Court to reject DTB’s defense arguing that it is based on illegalities.
“The defenses are based on illegal transactions including the loan agreements which were made in Kenya lending in Uganda. DTB Uganda facilitated illegality by allowing DTB Kenya to break the law in Uganda,” Muwema said explaining that DTB Kenya is not licensed to carry out financial services in Uganda.
“It was wrong to carry out any business with Hamis Kiggundu and that it was wrong for the bank to use their counterparts, of DTB Uganda to help them enforce the loan agreement in Uganda”.
The lawyer argues that the court should find it logical to dismiss the evidence by DTB Uganda for helping another bank carry out illegality.
According to court documents, Kiggundu provided security/mortgage comprised in Plot no.923, Block 9 located at Makerere Hill Road to support the credit facilities he had got from DTB but the businessman says when he carried out an audit and reconciliation of the loan accounts, he found out that the DTB had taken shs34 billion and $23 million from his account.
The businessman wants the court to declare that DTB breached the different loan agreements entered into with him between February 16, 2011, and November 16, 2019, when it fully recovered over and above what was due to it through the loan installments and interest payment deductions.
DTB argues that the businessman through his tow companies obtained credit facilities from them and provided securities in the form of property to secure the credit facilities.
The bank argues that the facility agreements entered into between the parties are legally binding and enforceable under the law and that the deductions and charges made against the plaintiff’s accounts were in accordance with the credit facilities issued to them.
According to the bank, the businessman’s issuance of notices to it purporting to terminate their bank-customer relationships, it remains liable to settle its payment obligations and fulfill the terms of the mortgage instruments