The contentious matter stems from a land dispute involving the estate of the late Festo Banja. The plaintiffs — Zalwango Margret Nalongo, Lumasi John Kazibwe, and Kimera Eddy — acting as administrators of Banja’s estate, sued multiple parties including Ladha Kassam & Company Limited, Ebrahim Kassam & Sons Properties Ltd, Nuhu Wadembere, Commissioner of Land Registration, Mugumya Moses, Blue City Investments Ltd, Melvin Karuhanga, Ferdinand Musimenta, and the Attorney General.
The plaintiffs sought several orders, including a declaration that the disputed land, Plot 3 Block 408 in Sisa, belonged to Banja’s estate. They alleged that titles for plots 206-210, Block 408 FRV 3 Folio 15, held by the defendants, were fraudulently created and demanded their cancellation, restoration of the land to Mailo tenure, eviction of the defendants, and compensation for damages.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims after a comprehensive review of the historical records. The land was initially under Mailo tenure but was lawfully converted to Freehold following the colonial legal frameworks established after the 1900 Uganda Agreement.
On September 6, 1915, Festo Banja transferred the land to the Governor of the Protectorate for valuable consideration, formalized under Instrument of Transfer No. 302 on November 22, 1915. The transfer was valid, and the land ceased to be part of Banja’s estate.
The plaintiffs were found to have fraudulently reconstructed a Mailo title over land that had long been converted to Freehold tenure. The fraudulent act relied on outdated historical records without proper authorisation.
The court determined that this reconstruction was illegitimate, as the plaintiffs’ Letters of Administration and the Succession Register did not include the disputed land. The defendants, who had acquired titles through legitimate transfers, were declared bona fide purchasers of value. Their titles were found to be valid under the law.
The suit was dismissed with costs. Additionally, the plaintiff’s attorney was ordered to bear personal liability for the costs if the plaintiff’s whereabouts remained unknown. The court also directed that criminal investigations be launched into the plaintiffs and their attorneys for fraudulent activities and unlawful possession of the Registrar of Titles’ original certificate.
Despite the court’s clear findings, New Vision’s report inaccurately suggested that the judgment endorsed the right of foreigners to own Freehold land in Uganda. The Judiciary emphasized that at no point did the Principal Judge rule in favour of such a provision.
The Judiciary condemned New Vision’s publication for distorting the facts and undermining judicial principles. The statement demanded that New Vision retract the false report through the same platform and correct the record. The public was advised to disregard the misleading information, as it does not reflect the court’s ruling or Uganda’s laws on land ownership.
Uganda’s legal framework allows for several land tenure systems, including Mailo, Freehold, Leasehold, and Customary Tenure. Under the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act, foreigners are restricted to holding land under Leasehold Tenure and cannot hold land under Freehold or Mailo Tenure.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at editorial@watchdoguganda.com
