Court blocks KCB from selling Cedric Babu’s Kololo home

The High Court in Kampala has stopped Kenya Commercial Bank (Uganda) Limited from selling a Kololo condominium belonging to the late Cedric Ndilima Babu until the main case is heard.

In a ruling delivered on February 23, 2026, Assistant Registrar Her Worship Mulondo Mastula issued a temporary injunction restraining the bank from selling, advertising, auctioning or evicting occupants from Condominium Unit No. 2 on LRV KCCA 119/19 at Plot 1, Fumu Lane, Kololo.

Babu’s widow and their three sons live in the property.

The court stated that the bank, its agents or auctioneers must not “advertise for sale, sell, auction, evict, foreclose or otherwise deal with the property” pending determination of the main suit.

The dispute stems from a mortgage loan of 200,000 US dollars secured by Babu in July 2023.

The bank says the loan is in default and that about 182,710 US dollars, including interest, remains unpaid.

However, the estate argues that the loan was covered under a Group Mortgage Protection Policy. They contend that the insurance should have cleared the balance after Babu’s death in May 2025.

At the centre of the dispute is Clause 7.17 of the loan agreement. The clause states that insurance renewals must be arranged through the bank’s bancassurance arm.

It also provides that if the borrower fails to renew on time, the bank shall automatically renew the cover at the borrower’s cost.

The court found that the wording of the clause raises a serious issue that must be examined at trial.

The ruling states that a plain reading of the clause appears to require the bank to ensure continuous insurance cover, even if the cost is charged to the borrower.

The bank argued that the duty to renew the policy lay solely with the borrower and that the cover expired in August 2024 after premiums were not paid. The court said these differing interpretations can only be resolved at a full hearing.

On the question of harm, the court agreed with the family. It held that eviction from a family home cannot easily be compensated by money.

The ruling notes that removing a widow and her three dependent children would cause injury beyond the market value of the property.

The bank had also argued that the applicants should deposit 30 per cent of the outstanding loan before seeking to block the sale, as required under mortgage regulations.

The court declined to impose this condition. It said Regulation 13(6) gives the court discretion and that this was not a proper case to compel the widow to deposit 30 per cent of the forced sale value or loan balance.

The court directed the family to maintain the property and avoid any action that may affect the bank’s security until the main case is decided. Costs of the application will be determined in the final suit.

The condominium will remain under court protection as the case proceeds to full hearing, where the court will decide whether the bank failed in its duty to ensure renewal of the mortgage protection insurance.