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 development casts uncertainty over the society’s ability to collect and distribute royalties to musicians for the foreseeable future.

Milimani High Court Judge Justice Linus Kassan on Monday December 15,2025 declined MCSK’s urgent request to stay the Tribunal’s decision, instead scheduling the matter for inter partes hearing on July 21, 2026.

“Upon perusal of the motion dated December 10, 2025, by MCSK, I direct that the matter be heard inter partes on July 21, 2026,” Justice Kassan ordered.

MCSK, represented by lawyer Dancun O’Kubasu, had moved to the High Court under a certificate of urgency, seeking to suspend the decision of the Tribunal chaired by Elizabeth Lenjo, which barred the society from collecting and distributing royalties.

The motion also sought to restrain KECOBO and the Performing and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) from interfering with its operations.

In its submission, MCSK argued that the Tribunal “erred in law by misinterpreting and misapplying the Copyright Act (Collection Management Regulations, 2020) by imposing a rigid threshold of compliance and failing to properly assess whether the alluded deficiencies amounted to sufficient grounds to deny MCSK registration.”

The Tribunal, in its judgment dated November 25, 2025, discharged interim orders that had temporarily allowed MCSK to collect royalties, effectively revoking its authority to issue unified licenses or operate as a Collection Management Organisation (CMO).

“The interim order of injunction, stopping, barring, restraining, and/or prohibiting the respondent… from interfering with MCSK from the collection and distribution of royalties… is hereby discharged,” said Tribunal chairperson Hon. Elizabeth Lenjo.

The case arises from a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal filed by MCSK on October 16, 2025, challenging KECOBO’s refusal to renew its CMO operating license for the 2025–2026 period.

The Tribunal cited High Court precedents by Justice Chacha Mwita and Justice John Chigiti, revising timelines for KECOBO and other interested parties to respond under Section 21(3) of the Copyright Act.

KECOBO, through lawyer Alex Nyabwengi, maintained that MCSK was operating illegally.

“The appellant is neither approved nor authorised as prescribed under Section 2 of the Copyright Act to carry out functions of a CMO, and thus, the impugned orders seek to permit illegality,” Nyabwengi stated.

On October 14, 2025, KECOBO issued operating licenses to PAVRISK and KAMP Copyright and Related Rights, leaving MCSK, Film Makers Rights Achievers of Kenya (FRAK), and Collective Management Services (CMS) unsuccessful. PAVRISK and KAMP are listed as interested parties in the appeal.

MCSK has also faced internal leadership disputes, with one faction led by Ephantus Wahome Kamau (Chairman) and Ezekiel Mutau (CEO), and another led by Lazarus Muli with Richard Sereti as acting CEO.

KECOBO further highlighted that Section 46(a) of the Copyright Act prohibits collection of royalties based on tariffs not published in the Kenya Gazette.

The regulator cited a July ruling by Justice Mwita nullifying operative tariffs due to lack of meaningful public participation, leaving even approved CMOs without legally binding tariffs to collect royalties.

In response, MCSK argued that KECOBO erred in rejecting its license renewal due to missing certified copies of annual returns, failure to provide audited accounts for the past five years, and absence of proper authorization for rights management.

“KECOBO also erred in law in finding that the appellant failed to provide audited accounts of the CMO for the five years preceding the date of the application,” O’Kubasu said.

With the High Court setting the matter for inter partes hearing on July 21, 2026, the future of MCSK’s royalty collection operations, and the fate of many Kenyan musicians’ earnings, remains in limbo.

The post Blow to MCSK as Court Declines to Suspend Ban on Royalty Collections 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.