The arrival of a civilian lawyer at Akright Police Station in a military vehicle has added a new twist to an already bitter legal battle between Sarick Construction and Stanbic Bank, raising questions about the circumstances under which military assets may be used in matters involving private commercial disputes.
Witnesses said lawyer Joakim Kunta-Kinte Karaarira, who represents Stanbic Bank in the dispute, arrived at the police station in the military vehicle while reporting on police bond following his arrest over allegations relating to the removal of property from premises formerly occupied by Sarick Construction.
The incident has prompted public debate, with observers questioning whether the use of a military vehicle by a private advocate could create the perception of intimidation in a case involving civilians.
Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, has repeatedly emphasized discipline within the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), making the circumstances surrounding the vehicle’s use likely to attract public interest. There is, however, no evidence that the UPDF or the CDF authorized or were involved in the lawyer’s appearance at the police station.The police have not publicly commented on the matter.
A SHS4 BILLION LOAN
At the heart of the dispute is a commercial loan obtained by Sarick Construction in 2019.The company, owned by businessman Sam Okurut, secured a credit facility of Shs4 billion from Stanbic Bank to finance construction projects and expand its operations.
According to company records and documents seen by this publication, the relationship between the contractor and the bank later deteriorated after the loan accumulated interest and penalties.Sarick Construction maintains that between 2019 and 2022 it repaid approximately Shs14 billion, more than three times the original amount borrowed.
Believing the repayments exceeded what was legally due, the company commissioned an independent financial audit.According to the directors, the audit concluded that excessive penalties and compound interest had significantly inflated the outstanding balance and suggested that the company had overpaid the facility.Those findings form part of the company’s challenge before the Court of Appeal.
COMMERCIAL COURT DECISION
Despite the audit commissioned by the company, the Commercial Court ruled in favour of Stanbic Bank, finding that Sarick Construction remained in default.The ruling cleared the way for the bank to enforce its securities. Stanbic Bank was represented by Kampala Associated Advocates (KAA), with Joakim Kunta-Kinte Karaarira leading the legal team.
Following the judgment, court-authorized enforcement resulted in the eviction of Sam Okurut and his family from their residence, the closure of company offices and the takeover of several properties pledged as collateral.The Court of Appeal has yet to determine the company’s challenge against the Commercial Court decision.
DISPUTE OVER MOVABLE PROPERTY
The dispute has since moved beyond the recovery of land and buildings. Okurut alleges that movable property, including construction materials and equipment worth billions of shillings, was removed from the company’s premises without lawful authority.
He claims his family and employees recorded video footage showing individuals loading company property onto trucks. “We borrowed Shs4 billion and paid about Shs14 billion,” Okurut said in an interview.”We believe we have honoured our obligations. What we are now fighting for is justice. If someone wants to recover property, it should be done strictly within the law. Removing our movable assets without proper authority is something we cannot accept.”
These allegations have not been determined by a court, and Karaarira has not publicly responded to the specific accusations.
THE TRUCK INCIDENT
The latest confrontation occurred when a Fuso truck reportedly arrived at one of Sarick Construction’s properties to load construction materials.According to the company, neighbours alerted the Okurut family after noticing the loading exercise. The directors rushed to the scene and allegedly prevented the truck from leaving.
Police from Akright Police Station were called to intervene.The company alleges that the truck had already been loaded with valuable construction materials before police arrived. Karaarira later arrived at the scene.
Police subsequently arrested him before releasing him on bond pending further investigations.Authorities have not publicly disclosed the offences under investigation, and inquiries remain ongoing.
QUESTIONS RAISED BY MILITARY VEHICLE
The following day, Karaarira reported to Akright Police Station in compliance with his bond conditions.His arrival in a military vehicle immediately became the focus of discussion among lawyers, residents and supporters of Sarick Construction. Okurut described the development as disturbing. “We were shocked,” he said.
“This is a commercial dispute involving civilians. Seeing a civilian lawyer arrive in a military vehicle sends the wrong message. It raises unnecessary fear and creates the impression that military influence is being brought into a private legal matter.”
Legal analysts say the use of official government or military assets in private disputes can create public concern even where no wrongdoing has occurred.Neither the UPDF nor Karaarira has publicly explained the circumstances under which the vehicle was used.
APPEAL STILL PENDING
Sarick Construction insists that the central issue remains whether the company actually owed Stanbic Bank money after making repayments amounting to approximately Shs14 billion.Its lawyers argue that the Court of Appeal should examine the independent audit alongside the loan documentation to determine whether the debt calculations were accurate.
The company also wants the appellate court to determine whether the enforcement process remained within the limits of the law, particularly regarding the handling of movable property.For Stanbic Bank, the case represents the enforcement of securities arising from a Commercial Court judgment that remains valid unless overturned on appeal.
For the Okurut family, the litigation has become a fight to recover property, challenge what they describe as excessive loan charges and defend their business.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Several questions remain unresolved. Investigators are expected to establish whether any movable property was removed without legal authority, whether the reported video recordings support the allegations, and under what circumstances the military vehicle was used by a civilian advocate.
The Court of Appeal’s eventual decision will also determine whether Sarick Construction was correctly found to be in default or whether the company has grounds to challenge the Commercial Court judgment.
Until then, a dispute that began as a Shs4 billion commercial loan has evolved into one of the most closely watched commercial cases, touching on debt recovery, property rights, police investigations and broader public perceptions about the use of state resources in private legal disputes.
By Charles Gazza Kodili
Author Profile
- Charles Gazza Kodili is a seasoned journalist with over 20 years of experience in the media industry. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Mass Communication. He’s currently the Chief Editor at the Investigator.
Charles can also be reached via; Tel: +256 774 108978
Email: [email protected]
Latest entries
NewsJune 26, 2026JANET K. MUSEVENI BREAKS SILENCE: “It’s Me” as First Lady Thanks Ugandans for Prayers After Health Scare
NewsJune 26, 2026WHO SENT THE MILITARY VEHICLE? Civilian Advocate’s Dramatic Arrival at Police Station Fuels Controversy in Shs4 Billion Sarick-Stanbic Dispute. Questions Mount Over UPDF Asset Use as Court Appeal and Investigations Into Property Removal Continue
NewsJune 26, 2026PANIC AS LUKWAGO HOSPITALISED! Mulago specialists examine detained politician amid growing health concerns
NewsJune 25, 2026LOOKS CAN LIE! 21 ‘Kafeero Children’ Rejected by DNA, Ugandans stunned as forensic tests confirm only four biological offspring of the Kadongo Kamu legend
