Connect with us


DOCUMENT: I Won’t Give Up, Kabaka Must Reveal His Wealth – Mabirizi Files Notice Of Appeal, States 44 Grounds



The legal battle between Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II the Kabaka of Buganda and his subject Male Mabirizi on who is the rightful owner of the kingdom’s land has taken a new twist.

Lawyer Mabirizi has today filed a notice of appeal to the Registrar Court of Appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment where three justices overturned Justice Patricia Basaaza Wasswa’s judgement that forced the Kabaka to reveal his wealth collected from the kingdom’s land to Mabirizi.

Mabirizi wants court to declare that Kabaka Mutebi is not the owner of the kingdom’s land but a trustee keeping the land on behalf of the people of Buganda.

However, yesterday, three justices of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Fredrick Ngona Ntende, Ezekiel Muhanguzi and Hallen Obura, in their judgments read by Agnes Nkonge the assistant registrar Court of Appeal, ruled that Justice Basaaza’s orders to the Kabaka to disclose his wealth to his subject Male Mabirizi on ownership of the kingdom’s land was done in error.

In his notice of Appeal, Mabarizi has stated that he is dissatisfied with part of the Judgment, orders and omissions made by justice Egonda Ntende, Hallen Obura and Ezekel Muhanguzi.  Mabirizi says that the justices failed to indicate dates on which their respective judgments/ rulings were written leaving blank spaces in date provisions thereby contravening the substantive law relating to decisions of the court and thus rendering the decision null and void.

He further notes that the three learned justices failed to determine the matter of costs in relation to civil Application which was referred to them by Kasule JA Vide an order dated 9th May 2018.

Below is Mabirizi’s 44 grounds of appeal:

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA                                                                                                                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA







[ARISING OUT OF HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLICATION No. 41 OF 2017-RULING FOR DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS BY HON. LADY JUSTICE PATRICIA BASAZA-WASSWA ARISING OUT OF HIGH COURT CIVIL DIVISION MISC. CAUSE NO. 162 OF 2016 & MISC. APPLICATION NOs. 798, 1011 & 1012 OF 2016]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        





TAKE NOTICE THAT MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA being dissatisfied with PART of the Judgment, Orders and omissions in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 (THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA), Rulings, orders and omissions in Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017(MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA V. THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA) and the omission to determine who should pay the costs for Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA); of The Court of Appeal of Uganda at Kampala read by The Deputy Registrar, Court of Appeal on 1st October 2018(Egonda-Ntende, Hellen Obura & Ezekel Muhanguzi; JJA, intends to appeal to The Supreme Court of Uganda [As a first appellate court in respect of  Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017(MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA V. THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA) & Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA) and as a second Appellate Court in respect of Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017(THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA)]; against the said judgment, rulings, orders and omissions as the learned Justices of Appeal inter alia:

  1. Failed to indicate dates on which their respective judgments/rulings were written leaving blank spaces in date provisions thereby contravening the substantive law relating to decisions of court rendering the decision null & void.
  1. Failed to determine the matter of costs in relation to Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 (THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA) which was referred to them by Kasule, JA vide an order dated 9th May 2018.
  1. Went ahead to determine the merits of the appeal after making a finding that the appeal was incompetently before court since Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA did not agree with the findings of Egonda-Ntende JA, on his decision to dismiss the two applications challenging the competency of appeal hence allowing them.
  2. In alternative to 3 but without prejudice to it, Rushed to determine the merits of the appeal without determining Civil Applications No. 231 of 2017 and 271 of 2017 dealing with incompetency of the appeal since Obura & Muhanguzi, JJA did not agree with the findings of Egonda-Ntende JA, on the two applications hence purporting to determine an appeal which was under law withdrawn by the appellant or incompetent.
  1. Made a decision that the main cause pending before the High Court, Misc. Cause No. 162 of 2016 is not tenable, which did not arise out of the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant.
  1. Failed to make a decision on the consent/concession entered by counsel for the appellant before the High Court, to avail the documents.
  1. Deviated from the issues framed by the parties and proceeded on their own voyage.
  1. Failed to determine the Grounds of Affirmation filed by the respondent on 23rd August 2017 which if determined, would dispose of the appeal.
  1. Failed in their duty, as a first appellate court to properly evaluate the material before them and hence reached wrong conclusions in setting aside the Ruling of the Judge.
  1. Did not properly evaluate the pleadings, evidence and submissions and reached erroneous conclusions.

Without Prejudice to the above:

  1. Held that the appellant did not fail to take essential steps in instituting of the appeal yet it is glaring that the appeal was filed out of time.
  1. Accepted and relied upon the false affidavit of Baguma Cyrus in the face of contrary evidence on record.
  1. Held, contrary to commonsense and simple arithmetic, that the time between 5th June 2017 and 6th July 2017 was within the 30 days required to file a letter requesting for proceedings.
  1. Held, contrary to commonsense and simple arithmetic, that the time between 8th June 2017, when the Notice of Appeal was filed and 18th August 2017, when the appeal was within the 60 days limit in which to file an appeal.
  1. After agreeing that counsel for appellant derived their instructions from David F.K Mpanga, who is neither a party nor a recognized agent of the appellant corporation sole, validated the instructions on ground that David F.K Mpanga is an Attorney General, a position which is solely reserved for a cabinet minister under Article 119 of The Constitution.
  2. Validated the illegal instructions to advocates on the basis that the appellant had not objected to the representation and that it is not a matter for the respondent, hence condoning a clear illegality.
  3. Held that the affidavit in reply by Mukasa Twaha, who is neither a party nor a recognized agent of the party was valid merely by deponing that he is a legal officer under the office of The Attorney General of Buganda.
  1. Relied on the appellant’s record of Appeal which was not Certified as Correct by the Registrar of the High Court.
  1. Relied on Rule 6 of The Court Fees, Fines and Deposits Rules, which are repealed and no longer part of Laws of Uganda.
  1. Deviated from the compulsory and clear provisions of Section 75 of The Evidence Act, Cap. 6 which sets payment for certified copies as a condition precedent to obtaining of such copies.
  1. Treated the none-payment of certification fees as payment of insufficient fees yet the appellant did not pay a single penny and there was nothing to top-up.
  1. Did not refer to the respondent’s evidence and submissions as contained in the various affidavits and record of appeal.
  2. Failed to consider, or at least to comment, on the variety of authorities from within and outside the country which were referred to them.
  3. Highly contradicted themselves when they stated the principles of discovery but deviated from them.
  1. Held that the respondent cannot be sued under Article 50 of The Constitution, him not being a government yet under Article 2(1), the Constitution has a binding force on all persons throughout Uganda and under Article 20(2) of The Constitution, the rights and freedoms under Chapter four must be respected, upheld and promoted by all persons.
  1. Went into the arena of public and private law rights which was not part of the memorandum of appeal and which was never argued before them.
  1. Went ahead to pre-empt the outcome of the High Court Civil Division Misc. Cause No. 162 of 2016, which was not before court and in fact pending in the High Court.
  1. Declared that the appellant is a landlord and that the settlers are tenants which was not before court and which is in issue in the High Court with the respondent contending that the appellant is a trustee and settlers are beneficiaries and hence the law applicable is that relating to a trustee-beneficiary relationship as opposed to a landlord-tenant relationship.
  2. Held that an application for discovery and inspection may only be necessary or reasonable in case the head suit is maintainable at law or at least arguable; which is not one of the universally acceptable and known principles relating to discovery.
  1. After finding that Discovery is not necessarily limited to documents which would be admissible in evidence but to documents which advance an applicant’s case or damage the adversary’s case, held that the documents in issue could not be discovered.
  1. Held that the respondent is representing himself and the people from Buganda tribe living on the official mailo land, which is not supported by any of the respondent’s pleadings, as tribe has never been an element in all the pleadings and it is nowhere in pleadings that the respondent is representing other people.
  1. Relied on Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules to find that there was no representative order yet the main cause was not filed under The Civil Procedure Act but rather under Article 50 of the Constitution.
  1. Relied on the per incuriam decision of RWANYARARE v ATTORNEY GENERAL, Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997 which was Constitutional Petition and applied it to a human Rights enforcement main cause in total disregard of the decision of Opio Aweri J’s decision in ADVOCATES COALTION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL & ANOR v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 ORS H.C Misc. Cause No. 1000 of 2004(unreported), which was a purely human rights enforcement cause.
  1. Deviated from Constitutional Court binding precedent of TURYATEMBA & ORS V. ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR, CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 15 OF 2006 (2010) EA at 443 which is clear on principles of discovery.
  1. Tampered with the discretion of the Judge in circumstances where the learned Judge was clearly right and basing on matters which were not part of the grounds of appeal.
  1. Held that the discovery will not save costs on one hand and on the other stating that the respondent should pay colossal sums in search under The Registration of Titles Act to search for titles which are in the appellant’s possession.
  1. Created their own criteria for discovery, that the action must be maintainable, contrary to known criterion for an application for discovery.
  2. Held that there is no connection between the Bank Accounts and the main cause yet the respondent sought for refund of the moneys collected and the said moneys was deposited on the same accounts.
  3. After clearly stating the principles under Section 22 of The Civil Procedure Act and Order 10 Rule 12(1) of The Civil Procedure Rules, relating to discovery of documents, deviated from them in allowing the appeal.
  1. Allowing grounds 3, 4 & 5 of the Appeal without making a finding that the documents were not specific, agreeing that Buganda Land Board in an agent of the appellant and without finding that the learned Judge deviated from principles of discovery.
  1. Misapplied the principles relating to setting aside a discretionary decision yet it is settled that it is not open to an appellate court to tamper with the discretion of a judge on flimsy grounds.
  1. Dismissed Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 with costs yet the appellant did not appeal against the order of costs made by the judge.
  1. Un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the respondent to pay costs of Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 yet, among other factors, the appellant was found in fault.
  2. Un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the respondent to pay costs of the appeal to appellant yet, among other factors, it was found that the appellant ignored the Notice to Produce the documents.

The address of service of the appellant is C/O Plot 39, Kampala Road, Shell Capital Building, 2nd Floor, Suite 201, Tel 0787 263 086/0752 570 574, Kampala.

It is intended to serve copies of this notice on KALENGE, BWANIKA, SSAWA & CO. ADVOCATES, LUMUMBA AVENUE, KAMPALA.

Dated this………… of……………2018.

………………………………                                                                                              MALE H.MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA.                                                                 RESPONDENT (INTENDED APPELLANT)

TO: THE REGISTRAR,                                                                                           


Lodged in the Court of Appeal Registry at Kampala this ……………day of…….2018.


……………………………..                                                                                       DEPUTY REGISTRAR,







Drawn and filed by;                                                                                                                                                                                                   MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA,                                                                                                                                                                                     C/O Plot 39 Kampala Road, Shell Capital Building, 2nd Floor Suite 201



I Warned Him Not To Call, Smile Or Flirt With Other Girls- Woman Cuts Off Boyfriend’s Penis



Police in Mukono has arrested Rehema Mahayana 24 for allegedly cutting off her boyfriend’s penis.
Rehema told police she waited until her boyfriend Anthony Sekawa 28, had fallen asleep then cut off his manhood with a 4-inch knife.
Sekawa told police that he got into a fight with Rehema as he was trying to save his life because the she never stopped at taking his whopper but she also tried to slit his throat.
Sekawa was later saved by his neighbours who heard him shout because of the pain after his penis had been detached.
Upon arrest, Rehema told police that she had recently discovered her boyfriend was seeing different girls at a brothel located in Wantoni Mukono District and hatched the revenge plot against Sekawa.
“I discovered that he was secretly going out and flirting with other girls at different bars. This made me very angry. I was full of anger inside and couldn’t relax,” she narrated.
Sekawa was rushed to Namirembe Hospital for treatment while Kabayana was arrested and held in custody over the attack.
Kampala Metropolitan Police Spokesperson Luke Owoyesigyire confirmed that Mukono Police had received an emergency call about a man’s penis being cut off with a knife and responded so fast.
Owoyesigyire said that police arrived along with rescue staff and found the man severely injured and was rushed to hospital.
Detectives have discovered that the two had longtime relationship misunderstandings and that the suspect had on several occasions demanded he ceases contact with any other women, including not talking to them, answering their calls or even smiling at them which he however declined to adhere to.
The victim told police that he loved his girlfriend and believed she maimed his manhood in a grizzly bid to make sure he did not stray looking for other women.




Continue Reading


MP Who Told Ugandans Who Don’t Want To Pay Mobile Money Tax To Die Chased From Burial By Angry Mourners



Bunyole West MP Hon. James Waluswaka

Members of Parliament have started facing the wrath from their voters for supporting the passing of Mobile Money tax.

On Monday, Bunyole West MP Hon. James Waluswaka was chased away from the burial ceremony of one of the locals by angry mourners for supporting the tax.

The lawmaker had turned up at Mugulu-Busolwe Sub-County headquarters, where mourners were paying their last respects to Yokonan Were, the father to Butaleja District Planner, Sam Taata.

Before Mr. Waluswaka could get out of his vehicle, mourners swarmed on him accusing him of supporting the tax without consulting them.

“We expected him to vote against the tax but he betrayed us; we no longer want him to address us,” the mourners chorused. They also accused him of ‘lying’ when he said on the floor of Parliament that his constituents support the tax.

Mr. Waluswaka is infamously remembered for advising Ugandans to ‘die’ if they don’t want to pay Mobile Money and social media taxes.


By Remmy Atugonza


Continue Reading


Finance The NRM Primaries Instead Of Giving Out Money To Fake NRM Supporters – NRM Candidate Advises Museveni



Jane Nantongo Semuddu

KASANDA: National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate vying to represent the party in the coming woman Member of Parliament elections for the newly created Kasanda district has advised president Museveni who also doubles as the party chairman to first solve the in-house problems before looking outside.

Jane Nantongo Semuddu, one of the contestants in the NRM primaries has called upon the president to intervene in their NRM primaries because the party electoral commission boss Dr Tanga Odoi has failed to organise the primaries claiming that they don’t have money.

Nantongo says that it is a pity to see the president dishing out money to different groups of people some of who are duping him yet his own party cannot organize primaries because of funds.

“It’s very disturbing to see our chairman giving out money yet the secretariat says they have no money to organise the primaries. Can’t they talk to the national chairman and this is solved? We resigned from our jobs, we have families, there is no way we can look after them when we are not working, it’s now more than six months and we are seeing nothing yet other areas are getting by elections, why not us from Kasanda? Look, Shema North had just been created but they got their leaders, what’s wrong with us?” Nantongo asked.

While meeting different stake holders and residents of Bukuya Town council in  Kasanda district  last evening, Nantongo revealed that other political parties at Kasanda district are very organised and have already got people flag bearers unlike NRM where things are being mishandled, she warned that this is weakening the party.

“What is so special in Sheema North, Sheema Municipality, Bugiri, Busia and others where elections and primaries have been held that is not in Kasanda, sometimes we have to be very realistic,” Nantongo lashed

Five people are contesting to be the NRM flag bearers of the newly created Kasanda district which was cut off Mubende district.

However the NRM electoral Commission recently communicated that they don’t have money and the primaries were postponed until further notice.


By Mboowa Nathan


Continue Reading

like us


error: Content is protected !!