![[Kenya] Digital credit provider Tala disbursed Sh240 billion in loans in eight years](https://theafricanbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TALA-APP-360x180.jpg "[Kenya] Digital credit provider Tala disbursed Sh240 billion in loans in eight years 19")
Africa’s first female billionaire, Isabel dos Santos, has lost her fight against an application to freeze up to 580 million pounds ($735 million) of her assets in a legal battle at London’s High Court.
The Angolan billionaire, whose father Jose Eduardo dos Santos ruled Angola for 38 years until 2017 – is being sued by Angolan telecoms operator Unitel.
Unitel asked the High Court to grant a worldwide freezing order over dos Santos’ assets at a hearing last month and Judge Robert Bright granted the order on Wednesday, Reuters reported.
Unitel’s lawsuit
In 2020, Unitel filed a lawsuit against Dos Santos’ Dutch firm Unitel International Holdings (UIH) for loans given in 2012 and 2013 when Dos Santos was a director of Unitel to support UIH’s purchase of telecom company shares.
According to Unitel’s attorneys, the loans were not returned, and a balance of almost $395 million plus interest is still owed.
Isabel dos Santos contends that Unitel bears responsibility for UIH’s failure to repay the loans, attributing it to Unitel’s alleged involvement in the unlawful seizure of UIH’s assets by Angola.
The Angolan billionaire has also been under scrutiny for corruption allegations in Angola for an extended period. She has been accused alongside her husband of using $1bn in state funds to finance companies in which they held stakes during her father’s presidency, including from oil giant Sonangol.
Isabel dos Santos refutes the accusations, asserting that she is the victim of a prolonged political vendetta, resulting in the freezing or confiscation of her assets in Angola and Portugal.
She argued that since her assets have been frozen or seized in other countries including Angola and Portugal, another freezing order was unnecessary.
However, Bright said in a written ruling on Wednesday that he did not accept that “the other freezing orders mean that it is not just and convenient for this court to grant a further order”.
