Court Showdown: Muwema Law Firm Ordered To Cough $100,000 Security In Kololo Property Dispute

By Swift Reporter

The Court of Appeal has ordered M/S Muwema & Co. Advocates to provide US$100,000 (about Shs370 million) as security for a stay of execution of a monetary decree arising from a commercial property dispute with Downtown Investments Limited.

Justice John Mike Musisi, sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, issued the order as the law firm pursues an appeal against a February 2026 High Court decision in favour of Downtown Investments.

The court directed the law firm to either deposit the money in court or provide an unconditional bank guarantee from a reputable commercial bank within one month. Failure to comply will automatically cause the stay to lapse.

The dispute stems from a December 15, 2014 lease agreement under which Muwema & Co. Advocates occupied commercial premises on Plot 50, Windsor Crescent, Kololo, owned by Downtown Investments.

The agreement gave the law firm an option to purchase the property. In August 2021, Muwema & Co. offered US$1.05 million to buy the premises, but Downtown Investments rejected the offer as insufficient.

The disagreement later resulted in Civil Suit No. 0621 of 2023, in which Downtown Investments sought vacant possession, eviction, rent arrears, mesne profits, damages and costs.

In February 2026, the High Court ruled in favour of Downtown Investments, ordering the law firm to vacate the premises and pay US$148,300 in rent arrears, US$224,000 in mesne profits and Shs50 million in general damages, plus interest and legal costs.

Muwema & Co. appealed the decision and sought to stop enforcement of the monetary awards pending determination of the appeal.

The firm argued that execution could cause substantial harm through the attachment of its bank accounts and properties belonging to its individual partners. It also argued that exercising the purchase option had changed the relationship between the parties from landlord and tenant to vendor and purchaser.

Justice Musisi found that the intended appeal was arguable and raised substantial legal questions warranting consideration by the appellate court.

Among the issues is whether the purchase option in the lease could be unilaterally exercised and whether the law firm’s 2021 offer changed the legal relationship between the parties. The appeal will also challenge the basis for calculating the mesne profits.

The judge, however, declined to reverse the eviction because Downtown Investments had already regained possession of the property.

Justice Musisi noted that although the possessory part of the High Court decree had already been executed, the financial awards remained outstanding. He therefore stayed enforcement of the monetary component, including attachment, garnishee and taxation proceedings, subject to the US$100,000 security.

The judge said requiring security for the entire decree, which approaches US$400,000 before additional interest and costs, would be overly burdensome, while granting a stay without any security would unfairly delay Downtown Investments’ recovery.

The US$100,000 was therefore set as a balance between protecting the landlord’s interests and allowing the law firm to pursue its appeal.

Costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal.