Connect with us
  • NEWS

    Kayihura Was Satan, He Was Behind The Death Of My Husband – Widow Testifies

    Published

    on

     

    Residents of Kachanga sub county in Butaleja district revealed to the land probe shocking details of how police officers stripped them of their land on orders from Gen. Kale Kayihura. Asuman Musana, a resident of Muhura village testified that in 2015, a group of police officers stormed their villages and started firing bullets in air.

    “I will never forget that night, I was sleeping with my family members and we suddenly heard bullets in the middle of the night. My lord, I got out of my house and I saw many gunmen outside my house who were in police uniform. I went back to the house but they ordered me in Kiswahili language not to run. They commanded me to sleep down. When I was down, I heard them forcing my family members and children who were crying inside the house to come out. When they all got out of the house, they started beating us and ordered us to vacate our homes if we still valued our lives. I ran to the nearby village with nothing, I left all my property in the house and now me and my children and other relatives have nothing,” Musana said.

    He added that they later found out that the gunmen were policemen commanded by a one Odokonyero the former District Police Commander (DPC) of Butalejja district.  He said that Odekonyero told them that they can do nothing to him because they were ordered by Kayihura to chase them from their land.

    Fatia Napasi, a widow to Musa Akul testified that during the scuffle between police and residents from the ten villages who were using the 3000 acres of land, her husband was gunned down by police.  She said that Akul left two wives and over 10 children who are no longer going to school and have nothing to eat.

    She added that the police was supported by the local area chairperson Muhammad Kole who showed the policemen places where they keep their dried food. She pinned police for stealing her 20 bags of rice, 30 bags of maize, beans, ground nuts and other cereals. She testified that she decided to run to the neighboring sub county. “I’m happy that the president realized that Kayihura was Satan, he was behind the death of my husband he must be charged for the crimes he committed, we are very happy because he was behind our evictions,” Napasi said.

    She also pinned Agaba Abas  Kitagwenda,  the former Butaleja RDC and the current member of parliament  for Kiagwenda constituency for supporting their evictions from their ancestral land.  Her testimony left members of the commission in tears and Commissioner Joyce Habaasa promised to support one of the orphans.  Napasi’s testimony was supported by Salim Walyago Bizimbe who testifies that it was Agaba who ordered the police to establish a police barracks in the captured land.  He revealed that Agaba told them that president Museveni and Kayihura were the ones who ordered him to establish a police barracks because they wanted to rehabilitate Doho irrigation scheme. He pinned Richard Gulume the current RDC that he was brought to their district as Kayihura’s agent to torture them.

    He wondered how Butaleja district, which is full of Banyoli is always controlled by foreign RDC’s. Bizimbe told the commission that he told Kayihura’s men that, “You are a foreigner on our land, you don’t care about our lives that’s why you torture us. We understand that you want to frustrate president Museveni’s government by hiding behind him while torturing us.”

    He said that residents are now staying in the neighboring villages, sleeping under trees with nothing to eat. James Were, a reserve force intelligence officer and also a former LRA combatant and Alice Lakwena soldier testified that most of the gardens in Doho irrigation scheme which were used by residents are now used by police while hiding behind president Museveni. He said that it’s the reason why Gulume frustrated their move to retain their land through court when the two families of Hajji Marick Koire and Hajji Musa Hiffude withdrew the case from court. “As a trained intelligence officer, I wish to inform you the members of the land probe that this

    region is very fertile for rebel groups. I was a member of two rebel groups that’s Joseph Kony and Alice Lakwena. The acts of the former IGP whom we are sure that he was behind our eviction can take us back to those turmoil times. Am happy that finally the president realized his agenda and fired him,” Were said.

    Milly Mugyenyi, the women member of parliament Butaleja district revealed to Dr. Rose Nakayi and Joyce Habaasa the commissioners from the land probe who were on the fact-finding tour of Eastern Uganda that all the problems that the locals are testifying about were fueled by Hajji Marick Koire and Musa Hifude, the two tycoons who claim ownership of the land.

    Mugyenyi testified that Gulume ordered military people to chase away the residents after realizing that the government was going to inject over Sh28bn in the rehabilitation of Doho irrigation scheme. She added that the two tycoons are land speculators and have tortured her people to the extent of killing some of them. “My fellow colleagues are calling me all sorts of names and spreading rumours that I’m fueling land conflicts in this area but how can I sit down and watch my people being killed and tortured? I’m a leader and I will fight for them,” Mugyenyi said.

    When he was reached for a comment, RDC Gulume refuted the allegation that he owns land in Doho irrigation scheme. He said that he is a rich man who cannot own a rice plantation like the Butaleja peasants.

    “No no no, I’m above that, I can’t own a rice plantation, those allegations are false,” Gulume said. He added that the Butaleja land conflicts were fueling by politicians who are looking for votes.

     

    By Jamil Lutakome

    Comments

    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

    MY MONEY

    How City Businessman Sentongo Took First Win In The Shs10bn Legal War Against DTB Bank…

    Published

    on

    City businessman Haruna Sentongo the proprietor of Haruna Enterprises Uganda Limited is smiling from ear to ear after bagging the first win in the Shs10bn legal fight against Diamond Trust Bank (DTB) Uganda and Kenya branches respectively.

    Justice John Oscar Kihika of the Court of Appeal which also doubles as the Constitutional Court has issued a temporary injunction restraining the bank’s  agents, representatives, nominees assignees and/or successors in title from selling, transferring, alienating, evicting, dealing with and or in any way interfering with Sentongo’s interest and possession of the properties comprised in Block 12 Plots 538, 826 and 898 at Mengo until the determination of appeal against the the Commercial Division of the High Court Judgment.

    Sentongo through his lawyers lead by Commercial law giant Derrick Bazekuketta filed an application to the Court of Appeal alleging that his multibillion property is under a serious threat as banks have sent brokers to inspect the property with the suitable buyers claiming that it was available for sale on orders of the court.

    In his affidavit, guided by Bazekuketta, Sentongo pleaded to Court to stop the selling of his property insisting that his appeal is meritorious and he has higher chances of winning the appeal against the bank.

    He explained to the presiding justice at the Commercial Division of the High Court erred in law and in fact when he dismissed his entire case on technicality because he failed to honour his directive to fiIe trial bundle within the timelines he directed noting that to his surprise even the bank didn’t file the said trial bundle.

    He insisted that his failure was caused by the grant of an order for leave to amend his plaint and the subsequent pleadings.

    However, the bank through their lawyers led by Stephen Zimula protested the application relying on the affidavit of Emajeit Mbabazi. Zimula raised two preliminary points of law insisting that the application is incomplete before the Court of Appeal.

    In his submissions, Zimula told Court that the said application was supposed to be first filed in the High Court before proceeding to the Court of Appeal insisting that the Order issued by the High Court is a negative order that is not capable of being stayed.

    Counsel informed Court that the rule against issuing a stay order in respect to a negative order cannot be circumvented merely by terming the order sought as an injunction.

    In reply, armed with a number of authorities, Bazekuketta told Court that in an application for temporary injunction, it is not mandatory for the Applicant to first file the Application at the High Court noting that laws and rules allow him to rush to the Appellate Court directly.

    He also argued that his application before the said Court is one seeking for a temporary injunctive order and the same is validly before the court.

    He explained to the Court that his application is for a temporary injunction and not an order of stay of execution of a negative order.

    He pleaded with counsel Zimula to carefully revise his law books so that they help him not to confuse an application for stay of execution with an application for a temporary injunction.

    Justice Kihika agreed with counsel Bazekekutte’s submissions noting that it would not be possible for Sentongo to file an application for a temporary injunction in the High Court in the absence of a pending suit explaining that the only option available to him was to file the application before the Court of Appeal.

    “I therefore found that this application for a temporary injunction is properly before this court. The first preliminary point of law is thus over ruled,” the judge stated in his ruling.

    He further disagreed with counsel Zimula’s argument that Sentongo’s application is seeking a stay of a negative order of dismissal which is not capable of being stayed explaining that it is clear that the application seeks an order for a temporary injunction against the bank restraining its agents and other people working in the bank’s interest from interfering with his interest and possession of his properties comprised in Block 12 Plots 538, 826 and 898 at Mengo until the termination of the appeal.

    Justice Kihika explained that a temporary injunction is intended to maintain the status quo of things pending the determination by court of some serious cause pending before it.

    He noted that the granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion and the purpose of granting it is to preserve the matters in the status quo until the question is investigated in the main suit and disposed of.

    He cited the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction which include; the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success and that such injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages.

    He further stated that a temporary injunction can be issued and if Court is in doubt, it would decide an application on the balance of convenience. He added that a temporary injunction is granted so as to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.

    On the issue of likelihood of success, Justice Kihika stated that Sentongo stated in his affidavit in support of his application that the appeal is meritorious, raises serious questions for determination of the Court of Appeal and has a high likelihood of success.

    He further agreed with Sentongo who stated that on 30th March, 2023, his matter came up for hearing and timelines were issued by the trial judge of the High Court on when to file witness statements, trial bundles and a joint scheduling memorandum.

    He added that On 14th April, Sentongo filed his witness statement and on 18th he applied for leave to amend the plaint, which leave was granted.

    Following the grant of his application, an amended plaint was filed on 21st June 2023 and in November, the bank filed an application seeking for further and better particulars.

    On 29th November, 2023, the trial Judge dismissed the suit under Order 1 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

    In conclusion, Justice Kihika therefore considered that Sentongo has convinced Court that he has a prima facie case pending determination of his appeal before the Court of Appeal.

    On the issue of whether Sentongo will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory when the temporary order is granted, Justice Kihika base on Sentongo’s affidavit where he stated that he acquired the suit land in 2014 and it took him over 5 years to develop the same with a market he named ‘Nakayiza’ after his mother.

    He added that he has a sentimental attachment on the property that cannot be compensated for in damages if the property is sold. The property in the instant case is a commercial building with a market whose rent proceeds can be ascertained.

    “In my understanding, the applicant has to show that the damage bound to be suffered is such that it cannot be undone. It is therefore my considered view that the Applicant will suffer irreparable damage if this application is not granted,” the justice ruled.

    On the issue of balance of convenience, Justice Kihika explained that it is determined to lie more on the one who will suffer more if the bank is not restrained in the activities complained of in the said case insisting that the balance of convenience favors Sentongo if the application is not granted.

    He based on the evidence that Sentongo is in possession of the suit property which is a commercial building with various tenants carrying out business and the sale of the property will be to the detriment of him. That is why he wants to maintain the status quo until the determination of the appeal pending before the Court of Appeal.

    Court records seen by the mighty Grapevine indicate that in 2015, Sentongo approached the bank for a financial facility for completion of the commercial blocks for Segawa Market which was to be rented out to tenants to derive rental income.

    Both parties executed a facility in a letter dated 22nd February, 2016, for a Loan of Shs5bn and it was agreed that the facility would only be serviced through rent collections from the market if the bank funded the development.

    Sentongo claims that the bank breached the facility contract by failing to disburse the agreed sums of monies.

    Court documents show that Sentongo told the Commercial Division of the High Court that the bank would purport to credit his bank account, and synonymously liquidate the loan, paying itself back immediately with the sums credited, and the sums it would repay itself were always reflected as “Loan amounts recovered”.

    The bank on the other hand, according to court documents claimed that between February to October 2016, Sentongo was granted several loan facilities and at his request, they were consolidated into one term loan with a single monthly instalment amortized for a period of five years.

    He however, failed to meet his loan repayment obligations consequent upon which the bank issued him two notices of default.

    The bank further claimed that when they started the process of recovering their sum of Shs10bn, Sentongo decided to institute a lawsuit and was defeated at the Commercial Division of the High Court.

     

    By Sengooba Alirabaki

    Comments

    Continue Reading

    CRIME

    Minister Mao In Trouble As Lawyers Threaten To Petition Law Council Over Contempt Of Court Order…

    Published

    on

    Seasoned Kampala lawyer who also doubles as Mityana South legislator Richard Kizito Lumu has threatened to lead a team of lawyers to petitioned Uganda Law Council contesting the actions of Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Norbert Mao of violating legally issued court orders.

    Lumu claimed that Mao intentionally violated a Court Order issued by High Court Registrar Fasial Mulalira stopping Democratic Party (DP) National Executive Committee meeting which was held in Mbale city.

    Lumu explained that the Court Order resulted from a recent High Court judgment declaring Mao’s election as the DP presidential general illegal.

    However Mao insists that the said Court Order is fake and that it was forged by his competitors in the party who are challenging his political marriage with president Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s government.

    Mao boasted that he is a highly trained lawyer who has been in legal practice since 1994 and he has enough experience to differentiate a fake Court Order and a real one.

    However, Counsel Lumu gave Mao only 24 hours from Sunday evening to report to police the complaint of forging a Court Order or they petition the Law Council.

    “Mao used his office as a minister in Museveni’s government to report the complaint to police and cause the arrest of the lawyer who extracted the Court Order. We are taking him to the Law Council for disciplinary action,” Lumu said.

    He claims that all the resolutions passed in the DP NEC meeting in Mbale are illegal and they are going to challenge them before the Courts of law.

     

    By Hadijjah Namagembe

    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)