City businessman and billionaire, Hassan Basajjabalaba could lose a significant part of his Kampala International University over UGX 57 billion loan dispute after the High Court in Kampala ruled in favor of Housing Finance Company Limited in a high-stakes financial dispute.
The ruling, which centers on a multi-million-dollar loan agreement gone awry, has sent shockwaves through Uganda’s business and academic sectors.
In 2010, Hassan Basajjabalaba, a prominent entrepreneur and the proprietor of Kampala International University (KIU), embarked on an ambitious project to expand the university’s operations in Kenya. The plan included constructing new lecture halls, administration buildings, student hostels, and other facilities at the university’s Kitengela campus in Kajiado County, Kenya. To finance this ambitious expansion, KIU sought a loan of $15 million from Housing Finance Company Limited.
The financing, however, did not go as smoothly as planned. Housing Finance Company Limited agreed to provide $10 million, with the understanding that the remaining $5 million would be syndicated with another financial institution. KIU reluctantly agreed to scale down the project’s scope to fit within the available funding. The loan was secured against several of KIU’s prime assets, including 62 acres of immovable property in Kenya and revenue from the university’s escrow accounts.
While the university expected the funds to be disbursed in structured tranches, it later alleged that Housing Finance Company Limited failed to release the final $3.7 million, which it claimed was crucial for completing the project. This financial shortfall caused construction to stall, forcing contractors to abandon the site, and leaving the expansion project incomplete.
KIU accused the bank of breaching the loan agreement, misrepresenting its financial capacity, and overcharging interest on the disbursed amount. According to KIU, the delayed payments and missing funds led to accumulated financial losses, further exacerbating the university’s financial struggles.
Housing Finance Company Limited, however, disputed these claims. The bank argued that it had fully honored its obligations under the agreement, releasing funds based on project milestones rather than pre-set timelines. Moreover, it contended that KIU had voluntarily revised the project scope to fit within the available $10 million, meaning the additional $5 million was never guaranteed.
As tensions escalated, both parties agreed to arbitration in Kenya. The arbitration tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of Housing Finance Company Limited, determining that KIU was indeed indebted to the bank and that there was no binding commitment to provide the additional $5 million.
The tribunal’s Final Arbitral Award stated that KIU owed $12.7 million, including accrued interest, to Housing Finance Company Limited. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Kenya, which dismissed KIU’s appeals at various levels, including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Kenya.
- Advertisement -