Connect with us

NEWS

DOCUMENT: Mabirizi Files 88 Grounds Why Supreme Court Should Force Kabaka To Reveal His Wealth

Published

on

Maverick city lawyer Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka has filed his 88 grounds to the Supreme Court asking it to force his Kabaka (king) Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, who is also the Kabaka of Buganda to reveal all his wealth.

According to over 10,000 booklets filed at the Supreme Court registry, Mabirizi indicates that he is dissatisfied with the ruling of the court of appeal which ruled in favour of the Kabaka not to reveal his wealth to his subject Mabirizi in the historical Kabaka vs Mabirizi land case.

Justice Engonda Ntende, Ezekiel Muhanguzi and Hallen Obura ruled that high Court judge Patricia Basaaza Wasswa errored when she issued an order forcing the Kabaka to disclose his bank accounts, all identities of tenants sitting on the kingdoms land and all the land titles given back to the kingdom from the central government from 1993 when the kingdom was restored in the country.

The justices noted that Mabirizi would have gone to the land registry to understand the status of the kingdom land titles.

The appeal was allowed with costs which Mabirizi didn’t agree with. Below is his full appeal…

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA                                                                                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA                                                                   AT KOLOLO-KAMPALA.

(SITTING BOTH AS A 1ST APPELLATE & A 2ND APPELLATE COURT)

CIVIL APPEAL No. 13 OF 2018.

(Arising out of Judgment of The Court of Appeal Ruling/Judgments (Egonda-Ntende, Hellen Obura & Ezekel Muhanguzi; JJA), read by the Deputy Registrar on 1st October 2018 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2017 and Civil Applications NO. 144, 145, 231 & 271 of 2017.

[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]

                                                                                                                                                     

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA:::::::::::::::APPELLANT

VERSUS   

THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

 

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL.

MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA appeals to The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kololo-Kampala, 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 bigger PART of the Ruling, orders and omissions in Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017(MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA V. THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA), the Judgment, Orders and omissions in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 (THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA V. MALE H. MABIRIZI K. KIWANUKA), 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 & Ezekiel Muhanguzi; JJA).

THE GROUNDS of appeal are that:

PART I: GROUNDS RELATING TO INVALIDITY & NULLITY OF   

             RULING/JUDGMENT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to deliver their rulings and judgments within the 60 days required by law, without any sufficient reason advanced hence vitiating the ruling(s)/judgment(s).
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to indicate dates on which their respective ruling(s)/ judgment(s) were written rendering the decision null & void.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred law in determining the merits of the appeal after finding that the appeal was not properly before court making the judgment a nullity.
  4. In alternative to 3 above but without prejudice to it, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they determined the merits of the appeal before determining Civil Applications No. 231 and 271 of 2017 relating to incompetency of the appeal.

PART II: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT  

TO DETERMINE THE DISPUTES PLACED BEFORE THEM.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleadings and evidence to the effect that the respondent’s affidavits in reply to Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 were filed out of time.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleading & evidence to the effect that the purported power of attorney upon which the respondent’s affidavits in reply to Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 were based on a manipulated signature and generally illegal.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in failing to make a finding on the pleading & evidence to the effect that the respondent was estopped and precluded from challenging discovery proceedings after failing to respond to the Notice to produce documents within the ten days prescribed by law.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they failed to put all the affidavit evidence on record in respect of incompetency of the appeal to clear scrutiny and analysis.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to determine the Grounds of Affirmation of the decision of the Judge in addition to those given by her filed by the appellant on 23rd August 2017.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to make a decision on the consent/concession entered by counsel for the respondent before the High Court, to avail the documents.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to determine ground 2 of the appeal.
  8. In the alternative to the above, all the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that it was not necessary to determine ground 2 of the appeal after determining grounds 3, 4 & 5.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they failed to determine the matter of costs in relation to Court of Appeal 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.

PART III: GROUNDS RELATING TO INCOMPETENCY OF THE 

APPEAL-COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPLICATIONS

  1. 231 & 271 OF 2017.

The grounds under this part and in other parts related to the grounds in this part are Without Prejudice to the point that the majority justices did not agree with the minority opinions of His Lordship Egonda-Ntende, JA in respect of Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017-relating to incompetency of the appeal hence deciding that the appeal was incompetent.

  1. The majority justices of the Court of Appeal (Their Lordships Hellen Obura & Ezekiel Muhanguzi, JJA) erred in law and fact in failing to give a clear order that the appeal was incompetently before court after not agreeing with His Lordship Egonda-Ntende JA’s ruling that the appeal was competently before court.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they accepted the illegal and defective evidence of the respondent in Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 against the legal, valid and competent unrebutted evidence of the appellant.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in holding that the appellant did not fail to take essential steps in instituting the appeal.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they accepted and relied upon the false affidavit of service by Baguma Cyrus in the face of contrary evidence on record.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in finding that the time between 5th June 2017 and 6th July 2017 was within the 30 days required to file a letter requesting for proceedings.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the time between 8th June 2017, when the Notice of Appeal was filed and 18th August 2017, when the appeal was filed, was within the 60 days limit in which to file an appeal.
  7. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the Rules do not provide for the time within which a letter requesting for proceedings should be served upon the opposite party.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in validating instructions to counsel for the respondent after finding that they were instructed by David F.K Mpanga, who is neither the respondent corporation sole nor his recognized agent.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in condoning an illegality by validating the illegal instructions to advocates.
  10. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the affidavit in reply to High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 by Mukasa Twaha was valid.
  11. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they, after holding that a corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, went ahead to validate instructions by David F.K Mpanga and an affidavit by Mukasa Twaha both of whom had no power of attorney from the respondent.
  12. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on the repealed Rule 6 of The Court Fees, Fines and Deposits Rules.
  13. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on Court Fees Rules instead of Section 75 of The Evidence Act.
  14. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated failure to pay certification fees as the same as failure to pay court filing fees.
  15. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated the none-payment of certification fees as payment of insufficient fees.
  16. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they treated inconsistences in the purported Registrar’s Certificate with the evidence on record as minor mistakes.

 

PART IV: GROUNDS RELATING TO DECIDING MATTERS  

NOT ARISING OUT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL,

              NOT DECIDED BY HIGH COURT, NOT SUPPORTED    

              BY PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE ON RECORD & ISSUES 

              FRAMED & NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they, after rightly stating that the appeal arose out of discovery proceedings, went ahead to deal with and determine matters outside the realm of discovery.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from the issues framed by the parties and proceeded upon their own voyage.
  3. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in holding that the letter requesting for typed proceedings was filed within 30 days from the date of judgment which was not the pleading & evidence of the respondent.
  4. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they held that the appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal which was not the pleading & evidence of the respondent.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they determined ground one of the appeal which did not emanate from the proceedings and decision in High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017.
  6. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in transplanting the submissions in respect to ground 1 of the appeal, which failed, and applied them in resolution of grounds 3, 4 & 5 to find that the underlying suit is untenable, without first notifying parties hence derogating the appellant’s right to fair hearing.
  7. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent cannot be sued under Article 50 of The Constitution, him not being a government which did not arise out of the memorandum of appeal and not in issue.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in going 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.
  9. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they pre-empted the outcome of the High Court Civil Division Misc. Cause No. 162 of 2016, which was not before court and pending in the High Court.
  10. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land and that the settlers are his tenants which question did not arise out of the grounds of appeal and which is pending in High Court.
  11. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the respondent is representing himself and the people from Buganda tribe living on the official mailo land, which is not supported by the pleadings and did not arise out of the grounds of appeal.
  12. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding 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 did not arise out of the grounds of appeal.
  13. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in setting aside the entire ruling in High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 yet the respondent only appealed against PART of the Ruling.
  14. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in granting a prayer to dismiss the entire High Court Civil Division Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 yet the respondent only appealed against PART of the Ruling.
  15. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in awarding costs in the High Court to the respondent yet the order of costs is not among the orders for which leave to appeal was granted.
  16. All the learned Justices of appeal erred in law when they dismissed Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 with costs yet the appellant did not appeal against the order of costs made by the judge.

PART V: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT 

OF APPEAL TO CARRYOUT ITS DUTY OF PROPER  

              APPLICATION OF THE LAW & THE RULES.

  1. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they, without striking out issues framed by parties, did not determine the cases before them on the basis of the framed issues.
  2. All the learned Justices of Appeal erred in law when they relied on the respondent’s record of appeal which was not certified as a true copy of the record at High Court.
  3. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not state the respective cases of the parties as presented and submitted to court.
  4. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not specify, in material particular, the evidence presented to court by each of the parties for the respective matters in issue.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land and that the settlers are his tenants yet the respondent admitted that he holds the official mailo land in trust for the people of Buganda.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in declaring that the respondent is a landlord of the official mailo land, yet he is a trustee, and that the settlers are his tenants, yet they are beneficiaries to the trust.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in not acknowledging, commenting, analyzing and referring to the various authorities from within and outside Uganda which were referred to them by the appellant.
  8. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the respondent cannot be sued under Article 50 of The Constitution, him not being a government.
  9. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from the principles contained in various Supreme Court decisions binding them.
  10. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they relied on per incuriam decisions which related to different facts while ignoring persuasive decisions which related to similar facts.
  11. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they deviated from binding and persuasive decisions relating to the principles of discovery.

PART VI: GROUNDS RELATING TO FAILURE BY THE COURT

OF APPEAL TO CARRYOUT ITS DUTY AS A FIRST 

         APPELLATE COURT.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed in their duty, as a first appellate court, to properly evaluate the pleadings, evidence and submissions and all the material before them and hence reached wrong conclusions in setting aside the Ruling of the Judge.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they highly contradicted themselves on the principles of discovery of documents.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in relying on Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules in a matter instituted under Article 50 of the Constitution.
  4. In the alternative to the above, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they found that the underlying suit in the High Court is untenable on account of lack of authority from settlers on the official mailo land yet the appellant himself has a beneficial interest in official mailo land.

 

PART VII: GROUNDS RELATING TO MISAPPLICATION OF

THE PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY & 

             CONTRADICTIONS THEREIN.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal could be conveniently considered together, in isolation of and before determination of ground 2.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they did not dismiss the appeal upon finding that the respondent ignored the Notice to Produce Documents duly issued and served upon him.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in deviating from the known principles of discovery of documents.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding 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.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they, 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.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when he held that the discovery of the documents in issue will not save costs.
  7. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the land in question was not specified yet they did not determine ground 2 of the appeal.
  8. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 5 of the appeal without making a clear and elaborate analysis of the principles of discovery and without finding that the learned Judge deviated from the principles.

 

PART VIII:GROUNDS RELATING TO TAMPERING WITH THE

                     DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE CONTRARY

                     TO THE GENERAL RULE.

  1. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in tampering 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.
  2. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 3 of the appeal without putting the discretionary finding of the judge on relevancy of the documents to a clear scrutiny and analysis.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing ground 4 of the appeal after agreeing with the appellant that Buganda Land Board is an agent of the respondent and without putting the discretionary finding of the judge on why the Bank statements had to be discovered to a proper and clear scrutiny and analysis.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law in overturning the discretionary finding of the Judge by holding that there is no connection between the Bank Accounts and the main cause, without any serious reasons given or showing that the Judge was clearly wrong.
  5. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in going against the discretionary finding of the Judge that the land in question was specific without any reasoning and analysis to counter the judge’s finding.
  6. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they tampered with the discretion of the judge that the costs should abide the outcome of the main case without any valid reason for doing so.

PART IX: GROUNDS RELATING TO REMEDIES.

  1. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in setting aside the decision of the judge yet the appellant conceded to avail the documents in issue.
  2. All the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in not awarding costs of Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 to the appellant.

PART X: GROUNDS RELATING TO UN-JUDICIOUS EXERCISE  

OF DISCRETION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL.

  1. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 after finding that the appellant was successful on several grounds raised.
  2. Without prejudice to the point that the majority decision was that the appeal was incompetent, all the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 when the filing of the two applications was necessitated and prompted by actions and omissions of the respondent.
  3. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay costs of the appeal to the respondent after finding that the appellant was successful on several points raised in support of the trial judge.
  4. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs of Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 yet the filing of the High Court Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 was necessitated and prompted by the respondent’s failure to respond to the Notice to produce documents.
  5. All the learned Justices of The Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they un-judiciously exercised their discretion to order the appellant to pay the costs in the High Court yet the filing of the High Court Misc. Application No. 41 of 2017 was necessitated and prompted by the respondent’s failure to respond to the Notice to produce documents.

WHEREFORE, the appellant PRAYS for orders that:

  1. The Appeal be allowed.
  2. The ruling and judgment of the Court of Appeal be declared null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
  3. The Applications and the Appeal be remitted back to The Court of Appeal for a fresh expeditious hearing, before a different coram.
  4. The costs of this appeal and those in the Court of Appeal for the Appeal and all applications arising therefrom be paid by the respondent to the appellant.
  5. The appellant be granted general damages for inconveniences.
  6. An interest of 25% per annum be paid by the respondent on the above damages and costs.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE but without prejudice to the above, the appellant prays for orders that:

  1. This court be pleased to determine, in favour of the appellant, all the points and matters not determined by the Court of Appeal.
  2. This court determines and allows, in favour of the appellant, Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 231 & 271 of 2017 as presented, with costs to the appellant.
  3. Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 be struck out with costs to the appellant.
  4. In the alternative to striking out, this court determines and allows, with costs, the grounds of affirmation of the decision of the High Court Judge in addition to those she gave.
  5. In further alternative to striking out, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 be dismissed with costs to the appellant.
  6. The orders made by the Court of Appeal be substituted with the orders made by the High Court Judge.
  7. The costs in Court of Appeal Civil Applications No. 144 & 145 of 2017 be awarded to the appellant.
  8. The appellant be granted general damages for inconveniences.
  9. The costs of this appeal and in the court of appeal be paid by the respondent to the appellant.
  10. An interest of 25% per annum be paid by the respondent on the above damages and costs.

Dated at Kampala this…………..day of……………2018.

………………………………                                                                                              MALE H.MABIRIZI K.KIWANUKA.                                                                 APPELLANT

TO:

THE HON. JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA.

 

It is intended to serve copies of this memorandum on KALENGE, BWANIKA, SSAWA & CO. ADVOCATES, Plot 30, LUMUMBA AVENUE, KAMPALA.

Lodged in the Supreme Court Registry at Kololo-Kampala this ……..………day of……………………2018.

………………………                                                                                  REGISTRAR,

 SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA.

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

TEL: 0752 570 574/0787 263 086, Kampala.

 

By Jamil lutakome

Comments

NEWS

BATTLE TO OWN WITCH DOCTORS: Kulanama Is One Of The Fake Doctors, The Law Will Deal With Her – Maama Fiina

Published

on

Hajati Kulanama with Maama Fiina (Inset)

The leader of traditional healers Sylvia Namutebi alias Maama Fiina has today lashed out to the newly installed leader of traditional healers and witch doctors, Hajat Kezia Kulanama alias Ssenga Kulanama putting her on the list of fake doctors they want to weed out of their business as they try to streamline it.

Speaking at Tavern Woods in Kabuusu, a Kampala suburb, Maama Fiina said that she is the right leader of traditional doctors and herbalists and that she doesn’t know about the self proclained leader Kezia Kulanama alias Senga Kulanama .

Minister Sarah Opendi with Maama Fiina

Kulanama was installed by Budhagali and Jumba Aligaweesa early last week and given all the powers and tasks to lead this group which some of the traditional healers led by Maama Fiina are still contesting.

“It’s good that the government has now come up with a Traditional and complementary bill to regulate all the herbalists. What we want is to have a law which will regulate all traditional doctors with the aim of removing all the fake doctors. People like Kulanama will be sorted with this bill when the president signs it. I don’t even have to talk about her,” Maama Fina said.

The state minister of health in charge of general duties Hon. Sarah Opendi who graced the function as the chief guest called upon the healers to abide by the law as they do their work. The minister says that when the bill is passed into the law, it is going to help streamline all the fake healers. However, Opendi called upon all the healers to register with their council because it will be regulating the healers.

She further cautioned them to avoid advertising themselves on televisions and radios without proper documents otherwise they will be fined twenty millions.

 

By Mboowa Nathan

Comments

Continue Reading

NEWS

Westerners Should Stop Evicting Baganda From Their Land – MP Sebunya Warns, State House Boss, M7’s Fake Son Pinned On Grabbing Five Villages In Wakiso

Published

on

Kanakulya Kawagga (inset) testifying before the land probe

State House boss Annet Kyakunda Atwine has been pinned for conniving with other city businessmen to evict thousands of people from land in Busukuma Sub county, Wakiso District.

Residents of Buwagga, Buso, Namulonge, Masooli and Munyonyo villages revealed that Kyakunda connived with a one Ruta Ngambwa who claims to be an elder son to president Yoweri Museveni to grab their land.

Kanakulya Kawagga told the commission of inquiry into land matters which was on a fact-finding mission in Busukuma Sub County that Atwine told them that she works in the legal department at State House. She threatened them that if they try to resist eviction, she was going to talk to the president and top judges and they will be imprisoned for life.

Kawagga told the commission that Atwine always moved in a car with government number plates guarded by armed men who beat and harassed residents who tried to resist eviction.  Kawagga added that Atwine was brought by Ruta Ngambwa, a land dealer and also the owner of prime properties limited which has offices on post house.

Kawagga told the Commission that Ruta even threatened them that he was working with State House because he was the eldest son to President Yoweri Museveni.

He added that Florence Kiconco, the legal officer in State House visited them but nothing was done to save the situation. He said that even the police land unit failed to stop Ruta’s atrocities. The then police mouthpiece Emilian Kayima once told them to go back to their land but Ruta evicted them again.

He also pinned a one Muhwezi for working with Ruta and commanding unarmed men with machetes who terrorized the community. Hajji Noordin Bayitaomu, a resident of Buso village also revealed to the commission that Ruta brought another deadly man, Adriane Muhereza, who attacked him with a group of armed men and goons carrying machetes when he was in his ‘kibanja’ digging with his family members.

Locals testifying before the land probe

He said that when they saw the men coming with Muhereza, who was pointing a gun at him, they decided to run and entered into his super custom car and drove off.

Muhereza and his men chased them and caught their vehicle in Dungu. They started beating them including his old mother who was in the vehicle. He warned him never come back to his ‘kibanja’ otherwise if he does, he was very determined to kill him and his family.  Kawagga told the commission that his grandfather Joseph Katerega Kawagga was the owner of the mailo land which Ruta and Atwine grabbed.

He said that Ruta even fooled some of their family members and signed for him transfer forms and grabbed their land titles. 90-year-old Margaret Nasubuga testified that Ruta fooled her and her son Johnson Kimera, daughter Gertrude Nakimbugwe and he grabbed their land.

She said that they met Ruta at his office at Post house and they agreed to sell him 30 acres of land. She said that Ruta was supposed to pay them shs350m and also get for them a land title for the remaining 5 acres of land which they planned to use as family land and burial grounds. She said that Ruta only gave them shs10m which they used to pay school fees.

She said that Ruta later connived with judicial officers and officials from the office of the Administrator General to forge documents which he used to fraudulently grab their land. She added that when Ruta obtained the said land title, he started evicting them from their land. She had to run and seek refuge at her brothers’ home in Mityana where she has been hiding since 2014.

Justice Catherine Bamugemereire who led the commission advised Ruta that she will notallow him to take land belonging to locals by force. She said that Ruta must first get the consent of the Community.

She also ordered the arrest of two men who residents pinned as being the leaders of the goons that harass them.  Bamugemereire ordered Ruta to bring to the Commission all the land titles he has for the four villages. He was also ordered to bring the list of people and receipts he used to pay the locals.

Bamugemereire said that the commission is going to do undercover investigations on whether Atwine and Ruta are State House workers.

MP Sebunya Warns On Revolution If Westerners Don’t Stop Evicting Baganda

Nansana Municipality Member of Parliament Robert Ssebunya used this opportunity to warn government to react very fast on the frequently land evictions especially in Buganda. He said that the people of Buganda are angry because of the evictions and to make matters worse, the so-called tycoons who are evicting them are coming from Western Uganda. He said that such acts will create another revolution like the 1986 revolution that brought Museveni into power.

He told the commission that for the ten years he has represented his people as MP, most of the people who have evicted his voters are from west. He wondered where the people evicting his voters illegally get the huge amounts of money which other Ugandans don’t have.

Sebunya was supported by Commissioner Fredrick Ruhindi who put Ruta on spot to explain where he got the money, he used to evict people. Ruhindi asked Ruta to tell the commission whether people in their 30’s have an association which facilitates the evictions of people from their land.  The commission is still investigating the matter.

 

By Jamil Lutakome

Comments

Continue Reading

MY MONEY

MTN WOES: Telecom Giants Confirm CEO Vanhellputte’s Deportation, Quickly Appoint  Ugandan As New Boss

Published

on

Telecom Giants MTN have confirmed that their CEO Mr. Wim Vanhelleputte has been deported from Uganda.
In a statement issued by MTN Group Corporate Affairs, MTN says that, “MTN confirms that Mr. Wim Vanhelleputte, the CEO of MTN Uganda has been deported from Uganda. MTN has not been notified of the grounds for the deportation and is working hard to establish precise reasons for the deportation.”
“We are understandably concerned about these developments and are engaging with the authorities to seek understanding that would lead us to resolving this matter.
To ensure business continuity, we have appointed Mr. Gordian Kyomukama, currently Chief Technology Officer, as Acting Chief Executive. Our focus continues to be on delivering the best quality products and services to our customers,” the statement further reads.

Mr. Gordian Kyomukama

Yesterday, Mr. Vanhelleputte was kicked out of Uganda back to Belgium after security forces got information that he was involved in subversive activities that were threatening the country’s security.
Mr. Vanhellputte’s deportation comes on the heels of deportation of three of his staff. Three weeks ago, MTN Uganda’s general manager for mobile money Elsa Mussolini, an Italian citizen, marketing chief Olivier Prentout, a French national, and Annie Bilenge-Tabura, a Rwandan who was head of sales and distribution were deported. Ugandan authorities accused them of using their positions to “compromise national security.

Comments

Continue Reading

like us

TRENDING

error: Content is protected !!