The courtroom, packed to capacity with faithful parishioners, family members, and curious onlookers, burst into applause and ululation as Ugandan High Court Justice Nakintu delivered her ruling, bringing temporary relief to the cleric who has been behind bars since his arrest.

“The accused has presented substantial sureties who have demonstrated both the means and willingness to ensure his appearance in court,” Justice Nakintu declared from the bench, her voice cutting through the tense atmosphere.

“This court is satisfied that the sureties are reliable and of sufficient standing in the community.”

The judge, however, was quick to temper the celebration with stern warnings about the conditions attached to the priest’s release.

“Let it be clear that bail is not an acquittal,” Justice Nakintu emphasized, peering over her reading glasses at the accused.

“Fr Ssekabira must surrender his passport to this court immediately and is strictly prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of Masaka without prior permission from this court.”

The prosecution, led by State Attorney James Olega, had vigorously opposed the bail application, arguing that the priest posed a flight risk given the gravity of the charges.

“Your Lordship, the accused faces serious charges of money laundering involving substantial sums,” Olega had argued earlier in the proceedings.

“There is a real and present danger that he may abscond and interfere with witnesses if released.”

Further, State Prosecutor Brian Kalinaki had asked Masaka High Court to return Fr Deusdedit Ssekabira’s case to the Chief Magistrate’s Court for plea in a Sh500 million money laundering case.

But defense lawyer Martin Musiime countered with equal vigor, painting his client as a pillar of the community with deep roots in Masaka Diocese.

“My Lord, Fr Ssekabira is not just any citizen—he is a man of God who has served this community faithfully for over two decades,” Musiime told the court. “He has a fixed place of abode, he has no criminal record, and he is willing to comply with any conditions this honorable court deems fit to impose.”

The bail conditions set by Justice Nakintu include a cash bond of 20 million shillings for Fr Ssekabira and 10 million shillings each for his two sureties, both prominent businessmen from Masaka town.

“The accused shall report to the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Masaka every fortnight until the conclusion of this case,” the judge ordered.

“Any breach of these conditions will result in immediate revocation of bail and re-arrest.”

As Fr Ssekabira emerged from the courtroom, still clad in his black clerical shirt and white collar, supporters surged forward, some attempting to kneel and kiss his hand in the traditional Catholic gesture of respect.

“God has answered our prayers!” exclaimed Rose Namubiru, a parishioner who had traveled from Bukakata to attend the hearing.

“We knew Father was innocent. This is just persecution of a man who has done so much for the poor.”

The priest himself appeared visibly moved but maintained composure, raising his hand in blessing toward the crowd.

“I thank the Almighty God and this honorable court for granting me this opportunity,” Fr Ssekabira said, his voice hoarse with emotion.

“I have faith in our justice system, and I am confident that when all the facts are presented, my innocence will be established beyond any doubt.”

The charges against Fr Ssekabira stem from allegations that he laundered over Sh 500 million through various parish accounts between 2020 and 2024.

Investigators from the Financial Intelligence Authority claim to have traced suspicious transactions involving large cash deposits that did not correspond with normal parish collections.

The case has divided opinion within Masaka Diocese, with some parishioners standing firmly behind their priest while others have expressed concern about the allegations.

Bishop John Baptist Kaggwa of Masaka Diocese has maintained cautious neutrality, stating in an earlier press release: “The Church respects the judicial process and will await the court’s determination while continuing to pray for all parties involved.”

Legal experts have described the case as one of the most significant financial crimes prosecutions involving a member of the clergy in recent years.

“This case will set important precedents regarding how religious institutions handle finances and their accountability to financial regulations,” noted Dr Christine Nakato, a law lecturer at Makerere University who specializes in financial crimes.

As Fr Ssekabira was driven away from the court premises in a white pickup truck, supporters lined the road, waving and chanting hymns.

Some held placards reading “Free Father Ssekabira” and “God’s servant, not a criminal.”

The case is scheduled for mention on March 15, when the prosecution is expected to present its witness list and the defense will have an opportunity to file preliminary objections.

For now, though, the jubilant faithful are savoring what they see as a victory, even as the wheels of justice continue to turn in what promises to be a long and closely watched legal battle.

Justice Nakintu’s parting words echoed in the courtroom long after it had emptied: “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. This court will ensure a fair trial for all parties.”

The post Masaka Priest Fr Deusdedit Ssekabira Freed on Sh20M Bail in Money Laundering Case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The post David Ndii, 20 Other Presidential Advisors Move to Court to Stop Ruling on Their Appointments appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Through his representatives, Senior Counsels Paul Muite and Fred Ngatia, Ahmednasir conveyed his contrition and commitment to respecting judicial dignity during an application heard on Tuesday before Chief Justice Martha Koome and five other Supreme Court judges.

In a dramatic turnaround from his previously defiant position, Ahmednasir has acknowledged the seriousness of his past conduct and expressed genuine regret.

Lawyer Dennis Musota, appearing in the matter where the application was made, told the bench: “I do believe that it has occasioned a sober reflection and genuine remorse on the part of the senior counsel.”

Musota informed the court that the banned lawyer now understands that “the relationship between the bar and the bench is not necessarily adversarial, but a custodial one, each entrusted with guarding the authority of the law.”

The senior counsel has committed to fundamentally altering his approach to judicial commentary.

Musota assured the judges that Ahmednasir “will recalibrate his conduct, especially in relation to the commentaries relating to matters before this court and any other courts.”

He promised that future comments would be “measured and with due regard to preserving the integrity, honour of the courts and the members of the courts.”

Senior Counsel Paul Muite revealed that extensive discussions had taken place with Ahmednasir about professional standards.

“Whatever concerns a member of the bar might have about a particular judge or judges, the choice of language in raising those concerns needs to recognize and appreciate the high office held by a judge of this honorable court,” Muite told the court.

“We have had that discussion and that discussion is appreciated, in particular, by Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.”

Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia pointed to recent behavior as concrete evidence of change.

When Justice Njoki Ndungu asked whether Ahmednasir had accepted certain “irreducible minimums” regarding professional conduct, Ngatia responded emphatically: “Yes, he has. Is there evidence about it? The beauty with evidence, the way I’m approaching this matter, is to look at the time past. In the recent past, all those matters are no longer what they used to be.”

He added: “Not a single word has fallen to the ground. All the words in the order have been well received and have been acted upon. And thank you, my Lord, Chief Justice Lenaola, my Lord, Justice Joki. Yes, diplomatic language. This is a very difficult matter that we are dealing with.”

The Supreme Court imposed the unprecedented restriction on January 23, 2024, following what it described as Ahmednasir’s persistent attacks on the judges and the judiciary.

The order comprehensively barred him from appearing “either by himself, through an employee of his law firm, or any other person holding his brief, or acting pursuant to his instructions.”

Supreme Court Registrar L.M Wachira’s letter stated bluntly: “It is untenable that you would seek justice in the very institution and before the very Judges, whose reputation and integrity you never tire in assaulting.”

The court noted that while the decision would affect Ahmednasir’s clients, it could not continue to tolerate attacks on its integrity.

Presenting the case for vacating the order, Senior Counsel Muite argued: “That denial of audience, in our very humble submission, has lived and in fact served its purpose. It is our humble prayer, extremely humble prayer, that the order be vacated.”

Fred Ngatia emphasized the significance of the two-year period, stating: “It is exactly two years, two calendar years. Time becomes a very good tool for communication, and that time, as I have indicated, is fairly substantial.”

He argued that circumstances had fundamentally changed.

“I would state without any fear, that the factors that may have prompted the Suomoto order are now largely historical, and I would also state without any fear, that henceforth, what I would expect, and Madam Senior, would be scholarly comments that practitioners ordinarily make,” Ngatia said

The application faced rigorous questioning from the bench.

Justice Njoki Ndungu pressed for specific assurances: “Are you reassuring us that in future he commits to respect and decorum to the Bench? You have spoken of scholarly works. Are you assuring us that the scholarly works and comments will not take the format that they have done in the past, and which was the basis of our order? I think you need to speak to us with clarity on these questions.”

Justice Isaac Lenaola similarly emphasized that the application should address “the offending conduct and offending words. I thought that would be a better way to proceed than to use time as the only basis for the application. I heard you on the first point, but I thought out of good faith and decency and etiquette and decorum, that bit should also come out of your submissions.”

Musota told the court that the two-year ban had achieved its corrective purpose.

“The order that is the subject of these proceedings with senior counsel has been well received and understood as a corrective intervention directed at preserving the dignity and the integrity of the process of this court. That intervention has spoken. The lessons have been learned and the experience taken positively.”

Senior Counsel Ngatia appealed for a fresh start in bench-bar relations.

“Let us not be held hostage by historical facts, or the relics of those facts. Let us now break bread and move forward, united as bench and bar, to a new dawn, a new dawn where none of the past is ever likely to come, disturb the breaking of bread, He said”

He also expressed broader concerns for the legal profession: “Chief Justice, I dearly hope on behalf of my colleagues in the bar that this incident will not happen again. And maybe we need to introspect as a bar. What are the extents that we practitioners ought to go to and what should we go to?”

The remorseful tone represents a sharp departure from Ahmednasir’s initial reaction to the ban.

In January 2024, he had posted defiantly on social media: “I will not take a brief or appear before the Supreme Court as long as CJ Koome, DCJ Mwilu, Smokin Wanja and Njoki are judges of the Supreme Court Kenya.”

Chief Justice Koome concluded Tuesday’s proceedings by thanking the counsels, expressing appreciation for the “kind gesture of working together in collaboration and in the spirit of the service of the people of this country. We will consider those submissions and we will deliver a ruling.”

The Supreme Court is set to deliver its decision on Friday, January 23, 2026.

The post “I Have Reformed”: Ahmednasir Apologizes to Supreme Court, Promises Respectful Conduct as He Seeks Ban Reversal appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a judgment delivered by Justices Daniel Musinga, Fatuma Tuiyott, and George Odunga on Friday, the appellate court upheld part of a High Court decision that found the Chandaria companies, referred to in the case as “obligors,” liable to pay the agreed purchase price for Guilders International Bank in 1999 but overturned the order that placed primary liability on Guardian Bank Limited, which is also associated with the family.

“We find that the Chandarias’ obligation to pay the purchase price fell squarely on the family’s obligors and not on Guardian Bank as purchaser,” the judges ruled, clarifying that the companies, and not the bank itself, were responsible for meeting the Sh196 million payment to Shivali Investments.

The Court ruled that the Chandaria-owned firms, and not Guardian Bank, were contractually obligated to pay the Sh196 million agreed in a 1999 share sale agreement with Shivali Investments and three other vendors, Naval Holdings, Ketty Investments, and Saaf Holdings and associated parties owned by Mr. Rajendra (Raju) Sanghani.

According to court documents, the dispute traces back to a complex deal that began with a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) dated October 13, 1999, and culminated in a formal sale agreement on December 30, 1999.

The sellers, Shivali Investments, Naval Holdings, Ketty Investments and Saaf Holdings, said they agreed to sell 200,000 ordinary shares in Guilders for Sh 196,000,000, a price tied to Guilders’ net asset value as at December 31, 1998.

The purchasers were Guardian Bank (the 1st appellant) and a group of obligors drawn from the Chandaria family and related companies (2nd–9th appellants).

The purchase price was pegged at Sh196 million, subject to adjustment based on the recoverability of certain loans in Guilders’ books by December 31, 2001, the “cut-off date.”

What followed was years of recovery work, counter-accusations and litigation over whether the purchasers had properly exhausted recovery avenues, whether the sellers misrepresented the recoverable loan portfolio, and who, as between Guardian Bank and the obligors, ultimately had to pay.

The appellants argued that many of the loans turned out to be non-performing and that they were therefore entitled to deduct huge sums from the purchase price.

Guardian and the obligors argued that the High Court judge erred in treating the MoU (which was expressly “subject to contract”) as part of the binding agreement.

The trial court accepted the sellers’ case and ordered return of securities and payment of the Sh 196 million consideration with interest at 12% as provided in the MoU.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the Chandarias’ firms failed to observe the contractual timelines and procedures for such deductions.

“It would be re-writing the contract between the parties to allow one of them extend obligations of the others and benefits for itself beyond the agreed time,” the judges ruled.

“The cut-off date was supposed to be extended in writing. It was not. Any purported sale or disposal of the securities offered by the plaintiff at any time after the cut-off date was outside the terms of the contract, irregular, null and void.”

The court added pointedly: “The horse had left the barn.”

Through their lawyers, the Chandaria companies argued that the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which preceded the sale agreement, was “subject to contract” and could not bind the parties unless a formal agreement was executed

They further claimed that the High Court wrongly relied on the MoU in ordering payment and return of securities.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that Guardian Bank and the obligors had lawfully set off unrecovered debts based on an independent audit conducted years later by Mr. Bhatt.

The audit, the court heard, showed that the recoverable loan portfolio had shrunk significantly, leaving the appellants with a negative balance of over Sh827 million.

However, the appellate judges dismissed the reliance on the 2014 audit report as “unsustainable and contrary to the contract’s express time limitations.”

“The evidence that emerges is that the 1st appellant had not demonstrated that it had exhausted all avenues in making full recovery of the warranted loans by the cut-off date,” the Court said.

“To admit post-2001 audits as the basis of set-offs would amount to rewriting the bargain struck by the parties.”

Lawyers for Shivali Investments, led by Mr. Sanghani, countered that the Chandaria firms never paid a single cent of the purchase price since 1999.

They argued that the appellants took over the bank, continued to profit from its operations, yet refused to remit the agreed consideration.

“The buyers cannot hide behind audits conducted over a decade later to justify non-payment,” Sanghani told the court.

“They were in control of the bank, they knew the loan book, and they chose not to honour their bargain.”

The Court agreed with this position, holding that the purchasers had full access to Guilders’ books and the opportunity to ascertain bad debts before the cut-off date.

“Had the parties taken the trouble of establishing the state of the loans as of 31st December 2001, this controversy would not have arisen,” the Court observed.

Another contentious issue involved four “blanket securities” that Guardian Bank sold to recover alleged losses.

The High Court had nullified those sales and ordered the return of the securities to the sellers.

On appeal, the Chandaria companies contended that the properties had been sold to third parties who were never heard in the proceedings, rendering the nullification a violation of the audi alteram partem principle, the right to be heard.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the trial judge erred in voiding the sales without involving the third-party buyers.

“The properties are now in the hands of third parties who were not parties to the proceedings and cannot be condemned unheard,” the judges ruled.

The appellate court therefore declined to order the restitution of those securities.

In conclusion, the appellate court declared the appeal partially successful and proceeded to set aside the High Court’s judgment of February 17 2023, substituting it with fresh orders.

The bench, led by Justice Musinga, ordered the Chandaria obligors (2nd–9th appellants), jointly and severally, must pay the Sh196,000,000 to the sellers, with interest at court rates from the date the suit was filed until payment.

The court further ordered that Guardian Bank (the 1st appellant) must “discharge and return the securities specified in the Sale Agreement to the respondents, save for LR numbers 209/9832, 3734/549, 209/8000/150 and 1870/II/6,” or pay their equivalent value if unable to do so.

“Ultimately, while the appeal succeeds in part, the obligation to pay the purchase price lies squarely on the Chandaria obligors. Guardian Bank’s role is confined to releasing the securities as stipulated, and nothing more,” the Judges ruled

The post Court of Appeal orders Chandaria family firms to pay Sh196 Million in Guilders bank Sale deal appeared first on Insider Bits News.