The Court of Appeal has dismissed a $3 million (approximately Shs 11 billion) recovery case against businessman Meddie Ssentongo, ruling that socialite Shanita Namuyimbwa, popularly known as Bad Black, failed to provide credible evidence that she handed him the money.

In a judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the court found that Bad Black’s testimony was unreliable due to contradictions in her sworn statements and the absence of evidence linking the missing funds to Ssentongo.

The ruling brings another chapter of the long-running financial dispute involving Bad Black, British businessman David Greenhalgh, Ssentongo and Davenshan Development (U) Ltd to a close.

The dispute dates back to 2012, when Bad Black and Ssentongo faced criminal charges over allegations of misappropriating funds belonging to Davenshan Development. Bad Black was separately charged with embezzlement, while the two faced a joint charge of conspiracy to defraud.

The Anti-Corruption Court convicted them on July 6, 2012. Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development subsequently filed a civil suit against Ssentongo, alleging that Bad Black had transferred $3 million belonging to the company to him.

Although the company initially included Bad Black in the proceedings, it later dropped its claims against her following a settlement. She subsequently became a key witness against Ssentongo.

In April 2015, High Court judge Henry Peter Adonyo dismissed the recovery suit, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ssentongo had received the money.

Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development appealed, arguing that Ssentongo’s earlier criminal conviction should have prevented him from denying responsibility for the missing funds.

However, a panel of Court of Appeal justices Florence Nakachwa, Eva Luswata and Stella Alibateese rejected the argument.

Bad Black insists she saw Ivan Ssemwanga’s body, tells critics to move on

Bad Black’s testimony questioned

During the proceedings, Bad Black admitted spending company money on plastic surgery in Dubai, medical procedures in Thailand and trips to Dubai with friends, where she paid for their entertainment.

Greenhalgh also testified that Bad Black had used company funds to acquire luxury vehicles, including a BMW X6, Nissan Murano, Range Rover and Mercedes-Benz.

The court further heard that she spent money on parties, including a birthday celebration at Rogue Club, and purchased properties such as a house in Munyonyo and a pink house that was later transferred to her mother.

Evidence was also presented showing that Bad Black travelled to Nairobi with friends and spent company money on several trips.

In her testimony during the civil proceedings, Bad Black claimed she had handed Ssentongo $3 million. However, she admitted that she had previously lied to the Anti-Corruption Court when she denied having dealings with him.

Justice Nakachwa found that the inconsistencies in her testimony significantly undermined her credibility.

No evidence linking Ssentongo to the money

The court noted that Greenhalgh had acknowledged that Ssentongo was not a signatory to Davenshan Development’s bank account and that there was no evidence showing he had withdrawn money from it.

An auditor who testified in the case said Bad Black had withdrawn $3.285 million from the company but could not establish how the money was spent.

The auditor also confirmed that there was no evidence showing that the company had transferred any funds to Ssentongo.

Justice Nakachwa agreed with the High Court that the evidence failed to establish a financial connection between Bad Black, Davenshan Development and Ssentongo’s personal bank accounts.

Court rules on stamp duty issue

The appellate court also examined whether the High Court had erred in questioning the legality of Davenshan Development’s incorporation over unpaid stamp duty.

On this issue, the justices sided with Greenhalgh and the company, ruling that failure to pay stamp duty was a procedural irregularity that could be rectified by paying the outstanding tax and any applicable penalty.

However, the finding did not affect the outcome of the recovery claim.

The Court of Appeal consequently upheld the dismissal of the $3 million suit, bringing the legal battle against Ssentongo over the alleged missing funds to an end.