High Court Judge Civil Division Justice Musa Ssekaana has upheld the application that was filed in by Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd, Hamis Kigundu and the Board f Trustees Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust to dismiss consolidated suits against them over Nakivubo land.
According to Suits HCCS No. 66/2017, HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 330/2013, HCCS No. 351/2018, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 822/2017, in 2017, the Board of Trustees Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust granted Ham Enterprises leases on the suit land (Nakivubo land) for construction of lock-up shops and re-develop Nakivubo Stadium which is currently at an advanced stage.
Prior to leases, Nakivubo Stadium which sits on an adjacent plot had got dilapidated due to poor management and was condemned by the Federation of Uganda Football Association from hosting any sports-related activities yet sports-related activities were the principal source of income for the management and maintenance of the Stadium and the activities of the Board of Trustees. The stadium accumulated several taxes and utility debts and at some point, it was under receivership by Uganda Revenue Authority (URA).
The Board of Trustees in a bid to revamp the Stadium and redeem the suit land from encroachers, executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ham Enterprises (U) LTD to redevelop the Stadium and Ham Enterprises Uganda limited acquired the leases which forced the encroachers to vacate the land.
However, Katende Steven and 2 others, Mukwaya Jimmy and 245 others, . Lugya Moses and 85 others Kabeera Ezra and 4 others, Kakande Bernard and Mbidde Ahmed and 7 others, filed consolidated Suits against Ham and the other two parties.
In their suits, they challenged the validity of the leases created on the suit land, by the Board of Trustees in favour of the Ham Enterprises.
In their suits, they claimed that former market vendors were displaced or evicted from the suit land, allegedly without prior notice. In the suits, they claim that they were entitled to be relocate and faulted Ham for not relocating them. They claim compensatory damages for merchandise lost.
However, Ham and the other two parties filed an application seeking the court to dismiss the consolidated suits on grounds that the Respondents / Plaintiffs in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and in HCCS No. 351/2018 do not have the legal capacity and or locus stand to sue the Applicants/Defendants on the claims set out in their Plaints.
In their application, Ham and the two parties prayed the court to declare that the Respondents’ / Plaintiffs’ pleadings and claims in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 351/2018 are founded on illegalities.
Fortunately in his ruling, Justice Ssekaana said, “for the foregoing reasons, therefore, this application succeeds and it is ordered as follows; A declaration hereby issues, that the Respondents’ / Plaintiffs’ pleadings and claims in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 351/2018 are founded on illegalities, and fail to raise any reasonable cause of action, are devoid of merit and are incompetent before this court.”
He also upheld the plea that respondents’/Plaintiffs’ suits and claims in HCCS No. 66/2017, and in HCCS No. 330/2013 are barred in law for being res judicata.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at editorial@watchdoguganda.com
