Supreme Court Grants Bitature Temporary Relief from Creditors

The Supreme Court has granted Kampala businessman Patrick Bitature temporary relief in his long-standing dispute with Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership, which is seeking to recover at least USD 10 million advanced to him through his companies.

Sitting as a single judge, Justice Elizabeth Musoke allowed an interim stay of execution filed by Bitature, his wife Carol Bitature, and their companies: Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd, Simba Telecom Ltd, Elgon Terrace Hotel Ltd, and Linda Properties Ltd.

Justice Musoke observed that the opposition by the lenders to Bitature’s application indicated their intent to proceed with execution, creating a real risk of enforcement before the substantive appeal could be heard.

“The fact that the respondent has opposed this application does support a reasonable inference that the lenders are interested in execution of the relevant decree in the near future. I, therefore, find on a balance of probabilities that there is a likelihood of imminent execution of the decree arising from a decision in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 305 of 2025,” she ruled.

The dispute dates back to a 2014 loan agreement, in which Vantage extended USD 10 million to Simba Properties Investment Co. Ltd, with Carol Bitature and the other companies acting as guarantors and offering their properties as security. Following default on repayment, Vantage sought arbitration through the London International Chamber of Commerce, which in 2021 awarded it more than USD 30 million.

Bitature challenged the award in Ugandan courts, contending that Vantage was not registered to operate in Uganda. The High Court barred him from altering the shareholding of his companies until the final determination of the matter.

In subsequent proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute since the loan agreement had expressly provided for arbitration. Dissatisfied, Bitature appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation.

Before that appeal could be heard, he sought an interim stay of execution to prevent enforcement of the arbitral award. Granting the stay, Justice Musoke noted that the arguments raised about the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction were matters to be determined during the substantive hearing.

“I would find that the applicants have satisfied the necessary conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of their substantive application. The fundamental point raised by counsel for the respondent is that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the intended appeal. However, the nature of those arguments is best left to be canvassed in the application for leave to appeal or in the main appeal if leave is granted,” Justice Musoke held.

The substantive appeal will now proceed before the Supreme Court.