Stanbic Bank Uganda headquarters in Kampala/ Courtesy photoStanbic Bank Uganda Limited has lost a case over a Shs 90 million loan after the High Court found that the bank’s claim rested on disputed facts, including who exactly the businessman’s wife was and whether spousal consent was properly obtained before mortgaging the property.In the ruling of July 21, 2026, Hon. Lady Justice Harriet Grace Magala said the court could not resolve the matter on an originating summons because the parties gave conflicting accounts, and the dispute required oral evidence.The case involved Capital Commodities and Beverages Co. Ltd and businessman Adia Godfrey, who argued that the mortgaged property in Ayivu, Arua, was matrimonial property and that his wife’s consent had not been secured.The judge noted that Stanbic claimed “the 2nd Defendant’s wife signed a spousal consent” and produced documents said to have been signed by Maturu Gloria, while Adia Godfrey insisted his wife is Letasi Winnie and that no lawful consent was obtained from her.“It is undisputed that the 2nd Defendant is married and that the suit property is a matrimonial home. What is in dispute is the 2nd Defendant’s wife. This is a contentious matter that calls for each party to adduce evidence,” the Judge said.She added: “In the premises, the Court cannot pronounce itself on the issues framed in the absence of clear evidence as to whether spousal consent was obtained and whether the statutory notices were effectively served on the Defendants. I therefore find that bringing the claim against the Defendants in court by way of an originating summons was inappropriateThe court dismissed the originating summons with costs to the defendants, but said Stanbic may still file an ordinary suit, subject to limitation.The post Caught in the Act: Stanbic Bank Loses UGX90M Case After Court Uncovers Deception appeared first on Business Focus.