A legal dispute involving Akright Projects Limited, Ecobank Uganda and Shelter Afrique over a UGX1.4 billion payment dates back to a USD1.5 million housing finance loan advanced to the property developer in 2005.
The dispute has passed through several court proceedings over more than two decades, with the latest case ending after the High Court dismissed Akright’s recovery claim against Stanbic and Ecobank Bank.
Justice Patience Rubagumya ruled that the 15-year-old claim was time-barred under Uganda’s limitation laws and could not be pursued as a separate fresh suit. The court also awarded costs in favour of Ecobank.
The 2005 Shelter Afrique Loan
The origins of the dispute go back to March 31, 2005, when Shelter Afrique advanced Akright Projects a USD1.5 million loan to finance real estate developments. The facility was secured by a legal mortgage over Akright’s properties.
Akright later encountered difficulties in repaying the loan, prompting Shelter Afrique to file a case against the property developer in 2009 over the default.
The lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn after the two parties entered into a consent agreement to reschedule the outstanding debt. The consent agreement became part of the subsequent dispute over how the loan was repaid and the amount that remained outstanding.
The 2011 Payment at the Centre of the Dispute
The UGX1.4 billion claim against Ecobank is linked to a transaction carried out during the debt restructuring period. On January 18, 2011, Akright instructed its primary banker, Stanbic Bank, to transfer UGX1,419,806,753 from an escrow account.
The funds were to be deposited into Ecobank account number 1101200224013. Akright claimed it had been informed that the account belonged to and was operated by Shelter Afrique.
Shelter Afrique, however, denied receiving the funds. It also stated that it did not hold or operate the specified account at Ecobank Uganda. The disagreement over the payment contributed to the continuing dispute over the outstanding balance on the Shelter Afrique loan.
The Loan Reconciliation Dispute
The issue resurfaced during subsequent proceedings concerning the amount Akright owed Shelter Afrique. The High Court ordered an independent audit firm to conduct a comprehensive reconciliation of the loan to establish the outstanding amount.
Akright later said it discovered the discrepancy concerning the destination of the 2011 payment in September 2025.
The company then sought to stop the reconciliation process until the disputed UGX1.4 billion could be traced. The High Court rejected that application in August 2026, allowing the loan reconciliation process to continue.
Akright Files Separate Recovery Case
Alongside its attempt to halt the reconciliation, Akright filed a separate recovery suit against Ecobank and Stanbic Bank over the UGX1,419,806,753 payment. The case sought recovery of the funds that Akright said had been transferred to an account it understood to be operated by Shelter Afrique.
The case brought the 2011 transaction directly into a separate legal action involving the banks. Ecobank, through its legal representatives, challenged the claim, including on the basis that it had been brought outside the applicable limitation period.
High Court Dismisses the UGX1.4 Billion Claim
In September 2026, Justice Patience Rubagumya dismissed Akright’s recovery suit. One of the grounds for dismissal was that the claim was statute-barred under Uganda’s limitation laws.
Akright sought to rely on allegations of fraud or concealment in addressing the limitation issue. However, the court noted that fraud had not been pleaded in the original filing.
The allegations were introduced in an amended case filed on March 30, 2026, after Ecobank had already raised the limitation defence. The court consequently found that the 15-year-old claim could not proceed.
Court Says Dispute Could Not Be a Separate Suit
The High Court also found that the claim was legally barred from being pursued as a separate fresh lawsuit. Justice Rubagumya held that the disputed 2011 payment arose from the earlier proceedings and the consent judgment concerning the Shelter Afrique debt.
The court found that any dispute concerning fulfilment of the debt obligation had to be addressed through the original executing court rather than through a separate recovery action.
The High Court therefore dismissed the suit against Ecobank and Stanbic Bank and awarded costs in favour of Ecobank.