Ugandan socialite Shanita Namuyimbwa, popularly known as Bad Black, has suffered another major legal setback after the Court of Appeal dismissed a $3 million (approximately Shs 11 billion) recovery case against businessman Meddie Ssentongo.
In a judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the appellate court ruled that Bad Black had failed to provide credible evidence proving that she handed Ssentongo the money allegedly taken from Davenshan Development (U) Ltd.
The justices found significant inconsistencies in her sworn testimony, concluding that her evidence was not sufficiently reliable to establish Ssentongo’s involvement in the missing funds.
The decision brings a lengthy financial dispute involving Bad Black, British businessman David Greenhalgh, Ssentongo and Davenshan Development to another significant turning point.
The legal battle dates back to 2012, when Bad Black and Ssentongo faced criminal proceedings over allegations involving money 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 pursued a separate civil recovery case against Ssentongo, alleging that Bad Black had transferred $3 million belonging to the company to him.
Although Bad Black was initially included in the civil proceedings, the company later dropped its claims against her following a settlement. She subsequently became a key witness in the case against Ssentongo.
However, her testimony would eventually become one of the central issues in the appeal.
Bad Black’s testimony comes under scrutiny
During the civil proceedings, Bad Black claimed that she had handed Ssentongo $3 million. However, she also admitted that she had previously lied to the Anti-Corruption Court when denying that she had dealings with him.
Court of Appeal Justice Florence Nakachwa found that the contradictions in her sworn statements significantly weakened her credibility.
The proceedings also examined how company money had allegedly been spent. Bad Black admitted using funds for plastic surgery in Dubai, medical procedures in Thailand and trips with friends.
Greenhalgh further testified that company money had been used to acquire luxury vehicles, including a BMW X6, Nissan Murano, Range Rover and Mercedes-Benz.
Other expenditures presented in court included parties, a birthday celebration at Rogue Club and property purchases involving a house in Munyonyo and a pink house later transferred to Bad Black’s mother.
However, establishing that company money had been withdrawn and spent was not enough to prove that Ssentongo had received the disputed $3 million.
Why the court ruled in Ssentongo’s favour
One of the biggest problems with the recovery case was the absence of direct financial evidence connecting Ssentongo to the missing money.
The court noted that Greenhalgh had acknowledged that Ssentongo was not a signatory to Davenshan Development’s bank account. There was also no evidence showing that he had personally withdrawn money from the company’s account.
An auditor who testified in the proceedings confirmed that Bad Black had withdrawn $3.285 million from the company but could not establish precisely how the money had been spent.
The auditor also found no evidence showing that Davenshan Development had transferred funds directly to Ssentongo.
Justice Nakachwa agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the evidence did not establish a financial connection between Bad Black, the company and Ssentongo’s personal bank accounts.
The appeal and the earlier High Court decision
The recovery case had previously been dismissed in April 2015 by High Court judge Henry Peter Adonyo, who found insufficient evidence proving 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 comprising Justices Florence Nakachwa, Eva Luswata and Stella Alibateese rejected that argument and upheld the dismissal of the recovery claim.
The appellate court also considered a separate issue concerning unpaid stamp duty during Davenshan Development’s incorporation.
On this point, the justices sided with Greenhalgh and the company, explaining that failure to pay stamp duty amounted to a procedural irregularity that could be corrected by paying the outstanding tax and any applicable penalty.
That finding, however, did not change the outcome of the financial recovery case.
The final decision leaves the $3 million claim against Ssentongo dismissed, with the court maintaining that the evidence presented did not establish that he received the disputed money.
For a financial dispute that has stretched across more than a decade, the latest ruling represents a significant development in one of Uganda’s most closely followed celebrity-linked legal battles.