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 linking him to the money.
In its judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the court found that contradictions in Bad Black’s sworn statements undermined her testimony and that there was no sufficient evidence establishing that Ssentongo received the disputed funds.
The decision is the latest development in a financial dispute involving Bad Black, Ssentongo, British businessman David Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development (U) Ltd that has stretched back more than a decade.
At the centre of the case was an allegation that Bad Black transferred $3 million belonging to Davenshan Development to Ssentongo.
Greenhalgh and the company pursued the money through civil proceedings, arguing that Ssentongo was responsible for funds that had gone missing.
The latest ruling followed an appeal by Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development after the High Court dismissed their recovery suit in April 2015.
In that earlier decision, High Court judge Henry Peter Adonyo found that the claimants had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that Ssentongo received the money.
The company had initially included Bad Black in the civil proceedings, but later dropped its claims against her following a settlement.
She subsequently became a key witness in the case against Ssentongo. Her testimony was central to the allegation that the businessman had received the disputed $3 million.
However, the Court of Appeal found that her account was unreliable because of contradictions in her sworn statements.
The court also found no evidence connecting Ssentongo to the missing funds, leaving the claimants without sufficient proof to overturn the earlier High Court decision.
During the appeal, Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development argued that Ssentongo’s earlier criminal conviction should have prevented him from denying responsibility for the missing money.
The argument drew on criminal proceedings dating back to 2012, when Bad Black and Ssentongo faced charges relating to 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.
The criminal proceedings and the later civil recovery suit were separate legal processes, although both concerned allegations involving the company’s money.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ argument that Ssentongo’s earlier conviction should prevent him from disputing responsibility for the funds in the civil case.
The appeal was heard by justices Florence Nakachwa, Eva Luswata and Stella Alibateese. The latest decision brings renewed attention to a dispute that has involved several court proceedings since 2012.
Following the criminal convictions, Greenhalgh and Davenshan Development pursued a separate civil claim against Ssentongo, alleging that he had received money transferred by Bad Black.
The High Court’s dismissal of that claim in 2015 did not end the matter, as the company and Greenhalgh challenged the decision through an appeal.
Their central argument was that Ssentongo’s earlier conviction should have had implications for his position in the civil proceedings.
The Court of Appeal’s November 2 decision has now dismissed the $3 million recovery case, with the court finding that the evidence presented did not establish that Ssentongo received the funds.
The case has drawn public interest because of the amount involved and the prominent individuals connected to the dispute.
The ruling settles the appeal against Ssentongo, but the available information does not establish whether Greenhalgh or Davenshan Development intends to pursue any further legal action.
There has also been no response from Ssentongo, Bad Black or Greenhalgh following the judgment in the information available.
For now, the central finding in the Bad Black Meddie Ssentongo case is that the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the businessman to the missing $3 million, bringing the long-running recovery dispute to another significant legal conclusion.
