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

Lawyer Mulira Weeps While Narrating How Minister Kibuule Killed His Relatives Over Land, Accuses Him Of Grabbing And Evicting 300 Families From Land

Published

on

Senior city lawyer Peter Mulira wept before the commission of inquiry into land matters when he was narrating how Mukono North Member of parliament and Junior Water and Environment Minister Ronald Kibuule killed his relatives and evicted hundreds of people at Wanyonyi village, Naama Sub County in Mukono District.

Mulira testified that Kibuule used Mukono tycoon Dick Munoba, his puppet, to evict people from 488 acres of land on plot 136 -160 block 189 Kyaggwe. He said that the land which Kibuule and Munoba grabbed belonged to his grandfather the late Ham Mukasa, the former Buganda chief in Kyaggwe County. Mulira said that Kibuule fraudulently transferred the land into Munoba’s name with the help of officers in the lands Ministry and the registry of land titles.

Ebert Byenkya the commission’s lead counsel tasked Mulira to provide evidence to support his allegation that Minister Kibuule was the one evicting people because according to the evidence they have, the person who is known for tormenting and evicting Wanyonyi people is tycoon Munoba not Kibuule.

Mulira first shook his head, removed his glasses and told the commission that he is a senior citizen in this country, who is well-trained and a senior lawyer who cannot just throw defamatory claims against very important people.

Mulira then started explaining Kibuule’s invisible hand in Wanyonyi land evictions, he even broke down and started shading tears.

“This is our country, where should we go, why is that man tormenting us to that extent, my lord the chairperson of this commission, I have lost two relatives because of this land. I stand by my words, that man Kibuule whom I cannot even call Honorable because he is not fit to be called so, is behind every violent act on this land, that’s the fact,” counsel Mulira noted while wiping tears from his eyes.

He again and again apologised to the chairperson of the commission justice Catherine Bamugemereire in tears. Justice Bamugemereire comforted him and promised that the commission understands the situation he is going through with hundreds of residents in Nama sub county who were evicted from their land by tycoon Munoba.

Counsel Mulira said that it’s not only his relatives who died because of Kibuule but there are other residents who died, their homes were demolished, their crops were destroyed and many others were imprisoned for resisting to leave their land.

He testified that residents openly told him that Kibuule warned them that if they think that Mulira will use court to fight for them because he is a lawyer, they will never win this land battle because the government wants it.

Kibuule told the poor residents that he has already got investors from China who are ready to establish factories on the land so that government can collect a lot of taxes for the development of the country instead of poor residents who are not paying anything but staying on the land.

He further explained that during his investigation as a lawyer, he discovered that the forceful hand used cannot be that of Munoba but it’s for big people in the government.

He testified that the way state organs like police, RDC and local chairpersons are used in this matter is evidence enough that there is a big person behind Munoba.

“I am a lawyer, I tried to save this land and these poor people but I feel I’m being betrayed, everybody is against them even when I came here, the secretary to this commission started threatening them to disown me because I am a lawyer,” Mulira added.

Lawyer Mulira (in glasses) talking to some local leaders

He said that he will fight and make sure that he never allows Minister Kibuule to evict locals he grew up seeing. He added that his grandfather Ham Mukasa educated them and even gave them the land which Kibuule wants to grab.

He accused Munoba of fraudulently forging the land title to acquire the land, he said that Munobe is alleging that he bought the land in 1973 from Dr. Emmanuel Lumu Ssajjalyabene the first health Minister in the independent government.

He disclosed that surprisingly, Lumu’s daughter Rebecca Namugenza, who is now the administrator of Lumu’s properties, swore an affidavit and told him that she is ready to testify before the commission that his father never owned any piece of land in Wanyonyi village and that his father never sold any land to Munoba as he claims.

He said that Munoba forged Lumu’s signature because in 1970, Lumu sold him another piece of land in Kasenge Mukono.

Commissioner Robert Ssebunya advised the commission that during that period which Munoba claims to have bought the land, Lumu was imprisoned in Luzira.

Ssebunya said that Lumu was among the ministers arrested and imprisoned by Milton Obote the former president of Uganda over the 1966 Buganda crisis and he was released by President Iddi Amin.

Mulira added that during that time, Amin abolished the private mailo land ownership and Lumu, who was still in prison couldn’t sign transfer forms or sell his land well knowing that the mailo system was abolished in the country.

He testified that Munoba’s documents indicate that he bought the land in 1973 but in 1970, he lodged a caveat on the land title before he bought the land.

He said that documents also indicate that in 1976, Munoba mortgaged the land title  to the bank, he wondered which bank can accept to give someone money on a land title which was already abolished by Amin government.

Mulira also accused a top High Court judge for advising Munobe to bypass legal system and evict people. He said that it’s this judge has frustrated his efforts to expose Munoba’s fraud before courts of law. The commission is still investigating the matter.

 

By Jamil Lutakome

Comments

Continue Reading

NEWS

They Will Continue Making You Cry Like An Animal If You Don’t Stop Celebrating The Downfall Of Others – Sam Omara Warns Lukwago

Published

on

(L-R) Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and Sam Omara

The former Kampala Field Force Commander Assistant Commissioner of Police Sam Omara has advised the Lord Mayor of Kampala Ssalongo Erias Lukwago to stop celebrating the downfall of others but instead appreciate the little they have done in their positions or else God will always pay him for the bad prayers and attitude towards others.

Omara says that Lukwago went to one of the local televisions and thanked God for his removal from Kampala just like he was seen celebrating the resignation of Kampala Capital city Authority (KCCA) Executive Director Jennifer Musisi Semakula this week.

Lukwago told the media that he failed to get sleep the night Musisi resigned because of joy, he went on and sang a song which he dedicated to the KCCA ED.

“I remember when I was removed from Kampala, a certain careless leader went on a TV program and thanked God for my removal but in my absence, another officer made him cry in the voice of a pig, hope you learnt some lessons,” Omara wrote.

In a WhatsApp group aimed at looking at, and discussing the current affairs in African countries dubbed ‘Walk the Talk Africa’ , Omara wrote that the time he was in Kampala, he contained most riots and protests and there were no murders and killings like it is happening now.

Omara is remembered for being at the forefront of stopping opposition kingpin Kiiza Besigye from leaving his home during the walk to work protests after the 2011 elections.

Omara and his men always laid siege and camped at Besigye’s Kasangati home day and night. Surprisingly, even with this heavy deployment, the highly skilled bush war fighter in Besigye always sneaked out of his home and stormed the city.

Omara always said that the opposition leaders are not enemies to the government but are struggling for power.

Omara adds that he will be part of the last duwa prayers of his former best friend in the force the late Mohammed Kirumira at his dad’s place at Mpambire today.

 

 By Mboowa Nathan

Comments

Continue Reading

NEWS

BOBI WINE WARNS NAMBOOLE/FUFA: Ugandans Are Watching You Play Your Dirty Games, One Day You Will Pay

Published

on

Kyadondo East legislator Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu alias Bobi Wine has warned FUFA and Namboole management for cancelling Kyarenga concert.
Today, Namboole stadium management advised Bobi Wine to get another venue for his concert after receiving a letter from FUFA. FUFA warned Namboole management that CAF warned them against hosting games in a bad pitch. The football governing body cautioned Namboole management that hosting events in the stadium spoils it.
Through his Facebook page, Bobi Wine has warned Namboole and FUFA to do the right thing and stop dancing to the tune of the regime.
Below is Bobi’s letter verbatim:
Friends, fans and all well wishers,
As you all know, today we should be at Namboole Stadium for our Kyarenga Album Launch. The regime shamelessly used Namboole stadium to block it by claiming that our concert was not amongst the events to be hosted by the stadium till January 2019. They also lied that there was going to be a wedding reception today. I can confirm that there is no wedding taking place at the Namboole today! Asuman Mugyenyi wrote a letter on behalf of police stopping the show!

Armed with the matrix they gave us, our show promoters rushed to Namboole and told them that we wanted to rebook our show on any of the dates that was available. They tried to give all sorts of excuses but we said we were ready to meet any conditions. We told them that even if it was only a Monday which was available, we were willing to take it. They ran out of excuses and we chose Friday 9th, November! They gave us very tough conditions for the use of the studium thinking that we would not meet them. One of them was that out fans must not use the turf/ grass during the show, and they imposed a very huge fine if this was violated. We complied with all the conditions and signed the necessary documents with them. Having rebooked the venue, we made fresh adverts and started advertising the new date.

Guess what?! Today we received this letter cancelling the show once again. Reason? They claim that they have received a complaint from FUFA about hosting our concert! Please note that the same stadium has so many other events scheduled and none has been canceled except our concert!

As shameful as this is, I am not surprised. You need to talk to any of the administrators at Namboole and see the amount of pressure they have been under from the regime not to host us. Many of them have been receiving threatening calls every after a few minutes. How can the regime be very scared of Ugandans meeting for a music show, simply because it is hosted by Bobi Wine?! I also know that they are doing everything possible to block all my businesses and other sources of income.

To the administrators of Namboole stadium, officials of FUFA and others who are used in these kinds of dirty games, please know that Ugandans are watching. No matter how much pressure you get from the regime, always do your job without fear or favor. Namboole belongs to Uganda. It is not private property. The positions you hold there are public positions. You must never use them against the people.

To all artistes and other well meaning Ugandans, we should know that this is not an attack on Bobi Wine. It is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on music, on the arts, on business, on free expression and on our livelihood as citizens!

To you my fans, friends and well wishers, do not lose heart. I can assure you that ONE DAY our nation shall be TOTALLY FREE from this mess. That day, all Ugandans will be free and equal.

Regarding the concert, the good news is that we are actively looking at different options and will communicate very soon. What I know is that whether Namboole or not, we shall hold the KYARENGA album launch pretty soon.

PS: May I also remind you that last year when my shows were blocked I went to court over the matter and the case has never been heard!

Comments

Continue Reading

like us

TRENDING

error: Content is protected !!