Guma Moyo property dispute returns to court

The Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear an appeal on June 19, 2026, brought by First National Bank Botswana (FNBB) and two others challenging a High Court ruling that halted the sale of properties linked to businessman Samson Guma Moyo. The dispute arises from FNBB’s efforts to recover debts related to Moyo’s company, United Refineries Botswana Holdings (Pty) Ltd. To satisfy these debts, FNBB initiated execution proceedings against properties connected to Moyo and associated parties.

The contested ruling was issued by former High Court judge Zeinub Kebonang, who barred Deputy Sheriff Bathusi Billy from proceeding with the sales of properties in Gaborone and Francistown. These sales had been scheduled for February and March 2024. The properties involved include portions of Lot 65878, Lot 35530, and Lot 43556 in both Gaborone and Francistown.

Justice Kebonang also ordered FNBB and the Deputy Sheriff to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale, with one party absolving the other. In a separate interlocutory application, Bookbinder Business Law’s motion was dismissed with costs awarded on a party-and-party basis. At the heart of the dispute lies a legal question: whether a creditor may proceed against sureties or guarantors while the principal debtor company remains under judicial management.

[paywall]

Justice Kebonang observed that the issue emerged after FNBB moved to sell attached properties despite earlier proceedings that suggested a stay of execution. He noted, “There was no clear judicial precedent in Botswana on the matter,” emphasizing that the Court of Appeal’s guidance was necessary. The High Court initially referred the legal question to the Court of Appeal and granted a stay of execution pending its determination.

However, in November 2022, the Court of Appeal declined to entertain the referral, ruling it procedurally incompetent and thus did not issue a substantive ruling on the legal question. FNBB later contended that the Court of Appeal’s refusal effectively lifted the stay, giving the bank the right to proceed with execution and sale of the properties. The opposing parties disagreed, maintaining that the stay remained in effect and that no decision had been made on the merits of the dispute. Justice Kebonang rejected FNBB’s interpretation, stating, “It is incorrect to suggest that the appellate court had determined the rights of the parties or removed the stay.” He further criticized the argument as misleading, saying it conflicted with the case’s procedural history and subsequent communications following the Court of Appeal’s decision.

[/paywall]