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

    MY MONEY

    Inside State House Meeting Where Rujoki’s URA Men Were Accused By Female Trader Before M7 Of Touching Their Breasts And Nyash  During Tax Collection…

    Published

    on

    President Museveni (L) and URA Commissioner General Musinguzi Rujoki (R)

    President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni was forced to direct Special Forces Command (SFC) detectives to with immediate effect kickoff investigations and report to him their findings concerning allegations that a number of male tax collectors sent by Uganda Revenue Authority Commissioner General John Musinguzi Rujoki sexually harass women during the exercise.

    Last week, Rujoki was accompanied by some of his staff who are enforcing the exercise of collecting tax from the city center to the State House to meet the president over the recent traders’ strike.

    President Museveni summoned the meeting to listen to both the traders and URA over the enforcement of the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing System (EFRIS) and tempers were very high from all sides.

    Security in State House was on alert because of the sharp misunderstanding between traders, especially from those behind Dr. Thadeus Musoke Nagenda’s Kampala Capital Traders Association (KACITA) and David Kabanda’s Federation of Uganda Traders Association (FUTA).

    Both Kabanda and Musoke were fighting to make sure that their people are accredited to attend the meeting. The total number who took Covid-19 test were more than 200 and they all traveled to Entebbe State House to meet the president.

    By 10am, traders pitched camp at State House Entebbe gate prepared to give moral supporter to their respective leaders as they were arguing out their grievances against Rujoki’s URA before the President.

    However, they were surprised when State House security informed them that it will be only their leaders who will be allowed to enter.

    They tried to explain to the SFC Commandos how Kampala Senior Minister Hajjat Minsa Kabanda and her State Minister Joseph Christopher Kabuye Kyofatogabye assured them that they wereall going to meet Museveni and the only condition was to take Covid-19 test.

    “Many of us tried to make phone calls to minister Kabuye but he was not picking and Kabanda told us that she was still engaged with the President in Kitebi and she was not in position to talk to us, after that, she hung up,” one of the traders told Grapevine.

    Only 25 leaders were allowed to enter State House and others decided to camp in one of the compounds near State House waiting for the President. When he entered State House from Kitebi, he just waved at them.

    The meeting started by 10pm and a number of ministers whoincluded: Francis Mwebesa the senior trade minister, his deputy David Bahati, Evelyn Anite the state minister for finance in charge of investment, Kampala Minister Minsa Kabanda and other government officials.

    The traders were allowed first to submit their grievances against URA before the big man. However, KACITA suffered a setback when President Museveni wondered what they wanted from him because he had just met them a few days back and asked them to talk to the traders not to strike.

    Before the President finished his statement, Kabanda and his team clapped their hands in surprise wondering why Musoke and his team met the President secretly without informing them. Kabanda has his team immediately started accusing Musoke’s team of betraying the traders.

    The President then gave Musoke and Isa Ssekito the KACITA spokesperson the green light to continue with their submission.

    Meanwhile, Kabanda’s people were panicking fearing that their man (Kabanda) might fail to submit properly their issues before the president because their issues were in writing (and he struggles with reading documents) and he was supposed to follow the document since the President also had a copy.

    “Kabanda shocked all of us, we don’t where he got the confidence from because he was on spot and was even given a standing ovation,” a source who attended the meeting said.

    However, before Rujoki was given the opportunity to respond to the complaints made against him and his team, a one Doreen Nakirya was given a chance to also raise her complaint and the entire meeting was shocked when she reported to the President that Rujoki’s men in the field sexually harass them.

    One of the businessmen who attended the meeting told theGrapevine that Museveni was shocked, to the extent that when Nakirya talked about URA men sexually harassing female Traders, the President, who was writing every submission paused.

    He asked her whether she knew the names of the men who sexually harassed them because the NRM government does not believe and associate with men who don’t respect women.

    Nakirya told the president that Rujoki’s men touch and feel women trader’s bums, breasts and make sexual signs after waylaying them in their shops and sometimes their children and workers see them.

    While the president wasasking Rujoki to respond to the allegations, Nakirya pointed out a one Godfrey (who was also in the meeting) and a colleague.

    Immediately, the president directed SFC detectives to take both of them to record statements so that investigations can kick off.

    The president was also told that URA men have a vice of asking for bribes from them so as not to close their shops after accusing them of delaying to pay their taxes to URA.

    In his defense, Rujoki informed the President that URA on several occasions has always interacted with the business community and a number of trainings and workshops concerning EFRIS were carried out.

    One of the businessmen confirmed to theGrapevine that it is true URA has always conducted meetings and trainings with traders.

    The President was briefed that businessmen and women who are complaining have been hiding the correct record of sales they make every day.

    He gave examples with evidence that traders have two books, one which is submitted to URA and another one in which they record the actual sales which they don’t submit to URA.

    Fred Bamwine the Commissioner in the Office of the Presidency confirmed that nothing is going to change in the way URA collects taxes especially on EFRIS even if Museveni meets traders again in May at Kololo strip.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    NATIONAL

    Panic In Kabaka Mutebi’s Mengo Administration As Top Clan Head Nsamba Is Put On Suicide Watch Over Arrest Threats…

    Published

    on

    Buganda Kingdom's Kabaka Mutebi (R) and Omuttaka Ssalongo Aloysious Magandaazi (L)

    There was a lot of panic at Buganda Kingdom clan heads council after their secretary and also the Ngabi clan head Omuttaka Ssalongo Aloysious Magandaazi went missing for two weeks.

    One of the clan heads told theGrapevine that they are in fear that their colleague may kill himself because for two weeks they have failed to reach him.

    “We have been looking for him via his known phone numbers to see how we can help him and his family because we know the humiliating situation he is going through and his family but all his lines are off,” a clan head said.

    He pleaded with Buganda Kingdom administration led by Premier Charles Peter Mayiga to intervene and save the situation by buying a new home for the clan head because the one he was evicted on a court directive from the one he was staying in.

    It should be remembered that two weeks back, Court bailiffs guarded by armed policemen from Natete police station commanded by Hassan Ssekalema threw Nsamba and all his properties including pigs out of his house at Mutundwe Kigagga zone Lubaga Division a Kampala city suburb.

    His wife Jane Nanyondo and daughter tried to resist but they were defeated, arrested and taken to Natete police station.

    They were later released with orders not to go back to their home and told to stop using the piece of land because it was taken over on a court directive.

    Rosemary Nayiga who defeated Nsamba in Court told theGrapevine that the said land was owned by their father Edward Kasozi but in 1993, Nsamba fraudulently used force to grab it because he was a son to a former clan head.

    The development to evict Nsamba from the house comes at a time when the Kingdom culture court (kkooti ya Kisekwa) is set to announce his fate on the matter of being the clan head of the Ngabi clan.

    A section of Ngabi clan members dragged Nsamba to the cultural court claiming that he was illegally elected to head their clan.

    Things are not moving well in Buganda Kingdom clan heads council because just recently, their treasurer omutaka Daniel Bbosa Lwomwa the head of Ndiga clan was shot dead in February 2024 and a number of suspects whoioncluded Milly Naluwenda the secretary to Kisekwa court, Derrick Noah Luggya a clan mate to Bbosa and others were charged with murder and remanded to Luzira prison.

    Nsamba, the council secretary is also on run over arrest threats because court bailiffs want him to pay them Shs30m as eviction fees as directed by court.

    One of the clan head said that Nsamba went into hiding fearing imprisonment because he doesn’t have money to pay the court bailiffs. He pleaded with Mayiga to intervene and save the man.

    Other clan heads who are under pressure from Kisekwa court include:their council speaker Omuttaka Ssalongo Augustine Kizito Mutumba the head of Kkobe clan who was even stopped from accessing the clan headquarters in Mawokota Mpigi district.

    A section of clan members refused to recognize him as their leader even though kkooti ya kisekwa declared him the legal clan head.

    Kkobe clan members claim that Mutumba entered into a deal with Mayiga’s administration to give him a win so as to silence his good friend and also grandchild Kassim Male Mabirizi.

    Mabirizi put Mayiga’s administration under pressure because of several court suits filed against Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, the Kabaka of Buganda challenging his leadership.

     

    By Hadijjah Namagembe

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    NATIONAL

    Furious Kabaka Mutebi Lawyers Protest His Subject’s Prayer To Access His Juicy Bank Accounts And Confidential Kingdom Documents He Signed With President Museveni…

    Published

    on

    Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi (R) with President Museveni (L)

    The Constitutional Court which also doubles as the Court of Appeal is set to decide on Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi’s protest against the prayers made by his subject lawyer Kassim Male Mabirizi who wants to access and inspect his juicy bank accounts and other confidential Buganda Kingdom documents he signed with President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the status of the Official Mailo land in Buganda.

    theGrapevine has exclusively seen a letter dated 2nd April 2024 which was received by the Attorney General’s chambers, K&K Advocates, lawyers representing Kabaka Mutebi in his Official capacity as a corporation sole culture leader of Buganda and S&L Advocates, the lawyers representing Kabaka Mutebi in his personal capacity as Ronald Muwenda Mutebi the son to late Sir Edward Walugembe Mutesa.

    In the said letter, Mabirizi claimed that he was going to use the documents to argue out his case against the respondents given that they are instrumental in helping court deliver justice in his petition.

    Among the documents Mabirizi listed to be given to him by Kabaka’s lawyers include; the certified copy of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding signed between Kabaka Mutebi and President Museveni.

    He also wants to be given up to date particulars of all land leases, sub leases, licenses and other dealings between the office of Kabaka of Buganda and himself as Ronald Mutebi and his personal companies where he has interests and shares.

    Mabirizi also wants Kabaka to give him documents showing the particulars of all payments so far made to his office as Kabaka of Buganda including bank transfers and statements pursuant to the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding.

    He wants to also access all the payments so far made to Kabaka Mutebi by settlers on the official mailo land returned to him by President Museveni’s government in 1993.

    Mabirizi also wants the Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka who is also a senior partner at K&K Advocates who he wrote to in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Uganda to reveal to him certified copies of the parliament plenary attendance lists for Members of Parliament present during the debate and passing of the Land Act 1998.

    He wants to be given the parliament plenary proceedings (Hansard) leading to the Land Act 1998 as passed, the parliamentary plenary proceedings (Harsard) that led to the Land (Amendment) Act 2010 and a certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2013 between the government of Uganda and Kabaka Mutebi.

    He also wants up to date particulars of all the properties so far returned to Kabaka, all payments and bank statements so far made to Kabaka as a result of the signed agreement.

    Mabirizi also wrote to Kabaka Mutebi’s other lawyers of S&L Advocates who are representing him in his personal capacity to reveal to him the bank statements of their client.

    However, Mabirizi confirmed that Kabaka’s lawyers of K&K Advocates through their senior partner Edwin Karugire who is also a personal lawyer and a son-in-law to President Museveni confirmed to him that they are not going to give him the documents he asked for because he has no legal bearing in his petition.

    “Now I’m waiting for a response from the Attorney General because he is also a party in my petition and Kabaka’s personal lawyers of S&L Advocates. If they decline to reveal the documents I ask for, I will proceed with the application before the Court so that they force them to do so,” Mabirizi said.

    He boasted that he is not threatened with Karugire’s actions because there are a number of authorities which he will rely on to convince the Justices of the Constitutional Court to force them to give him the documents he wants.

    Mabirizi further wants Kabaka Mutebi, his former cultural, palace and security minister and also the former Chief Executive Officer of Buganda Land Board  (BLB) David Kiwalabye Male, Baker Ssejjengo an employee of BLB, Bashir Kizito Juma the Deputy BLB Chief Executive Officer to be cross examined.

    He claims that Kizito and Ssejjego helped Kabaka to mismanage Buganda Kingdom properties and a number of them are registered in his personal names and companies.

    He further alleges that Kabaka Mutebi’s BLB used force to violate settlers on the official mailo while the government looked on.

    He wants court to declare that president Museveni illegally signed the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding with Kabaka Mutebi.

    He further wants the five justices of the constitutional court to declare that Kabaka Mutebi is not the owner of Buganda Kingdom official mailo land but just a trustee.

    Kabaka and other parties denied all the allegations Mabirizi placed against them and asked court to dismiss his petition with costs.

    Court set 1st June, 2024 as the date to kickoff the process of scheduling the matter before it is taken to the five justices who will determine it.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    like us

    TRENDING

    theGrapevine is a subsidiary of Newco Publications Limited, a Ugandan multimedia group.
    We keep you posted on the latest from Uganda and the World. COPYRIGHT © 2022
    P.O Box 5511, Kampala - Uganda Tel: +256-752 227640 Email: info@thegrapevine.co.ug
    theGrapevine is licenced by Uganda Communications Commission (UCC)