Forces Behind Commissioner Land Registration Mugaino’s Illegal Cancellation Of Makerere Prime Land Title Unearthed

The controversy surrounding the cancellation of the certificate of title for Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 (worth billions of shillings) at Makerere which belongs to an 82-year-old, wheelchair-bound lady has taken a new twist. It has been established that the defiance of the Commissioner for Land Registration (CLR), Baker Mugaino, is backed by external forces. And this, lawyers say, maybe the reason he is still on a court order that has since been overtaken by events.

The learned Commissioner is relying on Justice Joseph Murangira’s judgment which was based on Miriam Kuteesa’s 2006 forged Letters of Administration which were annexed to the 2009 ruling and the 2010 decree. Those Letters of Administration were later formally confirmed to be forged.

The matter was investigated by police. The Family Division of the High Court found that the estate Kuteesa claims to administer, under the grant she obtained in 2006 that court relied on to judge in her favour does not belong to Musa Kalanzi Muganzi as she alleges, but to Nakayima Kaliji. The lawful administrators are Nansubuga Zaitun and Luswata Abdu. This finding is further emphasized by ongoing criminal proceedings of forgery against Miriam Kuteesa before the Chief Magistrate at the Law Development Centre Court.

Verification of Letters of Administration by Family Court

The forgery brings to light two grants issued to Kuteesa. One is HCT-00-CV-AC-611-2006, in the names of Miriam Kuteesa and Mohammed Kasule as administrators of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi. That grant was issued on July 13, 2006. It was used in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 to obtain an ex-parte judgment and the 2010 decree. Justice Murangira records this on page 2 of his judgment: “the plaintiff applied for and was granted letters of administration on 13 July 2006 annexed and marked as ‘P2’.”

Whereas the first grant of 2006 is contested on grounds of forgery and is before the court, the 2011 grant that Mugaino says is valid and registrable is actually Kuteesa’s second grant. “How could it skip the mind of the Commissioner Land Registration who is also an advocate of the High Court, that no person in Uganda can possess two grants for the same estate?” lawyers are wondering.

HIS PROCESS OF DERAILING THE MATTER

In September 2023, the Commissioner for Land Registration Mugaino, issued a 21-day notice of intention to effect changes in the register for Plots 1244, 1245, 1246 and 1247, addressed to Daudi Kiwuta Kizito and others.

2. Commissioner Baker guiding Registrar Victor

In that notice, he said he would cancel the titles after 21 days and that the complainant seeking the cancellation was Miriam Kuteesa. When Daudi Kiwuta Kizito received the notice, he complained to the Commissioner. He pointed out that they had already settled with Kuteesa both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, and that they had withdrawn the matter that was in the Court of Appeal. That settlement brought Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 between Kuteesa and Edith Nantumbwe Kizito to a conclusive end. There was no other matter pending between the concerned parties in any court of Uganda after that settlement. Mugaino himself confirmed this position in a letter (in his own handwriting and signature) dated 6 November 2023 to one Registrar Victor. In his guidance to RT Victor, Commissioner Mugaino wrote as follows: “Court Order in notice was struck out in the Civil Application No. 11 of 2014 and therefore Consent Judgment in the Court of Appeal takes precedence…….”

Mugaino’s guidance to Victor was upheld in his ruling dated January 5, 2024 following a public hearing in which all parties participated and presented their positions that were thoroughly deliberated upon. Mugaino concluded as follows: “Therefore, we hereby dismiss the complaint and recommend that the parties pursue the ongoing court case to its final conclusion.” That ruling was addressed to the complainant, Miriam Kuteesa, on 5 January 2024 through her three law firms: Nynzi, Kiboneka & Mbabazi Advocates; Ahamya Associates & Advocates; and Barnabas DK Dyad & Co. Advocates.

It should be noted that no party, since January 1, 2024, has challenged EMA No. 1838 of 2016 apart from Mugaino himself. It is therefore strange that the same Commissioner on the instigation of Kuteesa through one of her lawyers, Ahamya Associates & Advocates (who were part of the public hearing), one year and three months later VIOLATED his own decision based on the same facts and the same complainant.

THE SETTLEMENT

The settlement in EMA No. 1838 of 2016 compromised a decree between Miriam Kuteesa (plaintiff / judgment creditor) and Edith Nantumbwe Kizito & others (defendant / judgment debtors). It was about settling Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009. This compromise/settlement finally and completely satisfied the decree that Commissioner Baker Mugaino is trying to resurrect.

After the High Court compromise, the same parties in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2015 (Nantumbwe & Others vs Kuteesa), arising from Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 and the 2010 decree that the Commissioner for Land Registration now seems “determined” to execute. The consent was before Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire in 2019.

It was at that level that the matter was completely settled. “Any act or attempt by a Registrar or the Commissioner for Land Registration after that Court of Appeal decision and without first setting it aside is illegal, misuse of office, and an abuse of power,” lawyers aver.

Surprisingly, one year and three months after that complete settlement and after Mugaino’s public hearing and ruling informing parties that the matter was settled and advising any dissatisfied party to go to court to set aside the settlement on 28 February 2025, the same Kuteesa, through one of her lawyers, Ahamya Associates & Advocates filed a fresh complaint with the Commissioner for Land Registration. She sought cancellation of the mentioned titles and their transfer into her name. Commissioner Mugaino, without notifying all the parties that participated in the public hearing as named in his January 2024 ruling, commenced a cancellation process for the certificates of title belonging to those parties.

When the owners learnt of the clandestine cancellation process, they complained to the Commissioner. He responded by inviting all parties to his office on 28 April 2026.

Meeting at the office of the Commissioner

3. Meeting at the office of the CommissionerHowever, he stormed out of the heated meeting that he was chairing, bringing it to an abrupt end.

In a strange twist of events, three days after that stormy meeting, the Commissioner invited a non-party and stranger to the matter, Kahinda Otafiire, Minister of Internal Affairs together with Miriam Kuteesa and her lawyers (Nyanzi, Kiboneka & Mbabazi Advocates and Ahamya Associates & Advocates), without calling or involving the owners of the land. The letter to Gen. Otafiire and Kuteesa’s lawyers, which this publication accessed, reads in part; “…you are hereby summoned to appear before me at the Office of Titles in Kampala on April 3, 2025 at 10:00 am, in or before noon, then and there to be EXAMINED concerning the certificates of title for the above-mentioned land. You are required to bring and produce the documents in your possession pertaining to the ownership and acquisition of the land comprised in Block 28, Plot 540. Given under my hand this 1st day of April 2025….”

Commissioner Lands inviting Gen Otafiire

Obediently, the powerful minister responded positively and arrived at exactly 10:00 am, ready to be ‘EXAMINED’. However, this raised many unanswered questions;

i) Why would the Commissioner for Land Registration secretly invite the Minister of Internal Affairs to a meeting where he is neither a party nor related to any of the parties?

ii) The minister has never appeared on the title for the land in question and was never part of the 1st and second public hearings or settlement. What documents did the Commissioner expect him to produce?

iii) The minister has never owned this land in question; since 1973 it has been owned and occupied by Nantumbwe.

Contrary to the forces pushing Kuteesa to keep changing her position, she wrote to the Commissioner for Land Registration on September 23, 2016. The letter was received by the CLR’s office on September 26, 2016. It concerned Kibuga Block 28, Plots 1244, 1245 and 1247 (formerly Plot 540 at Makerere), and she contested that she had never complained to the minister. In that strongly worded letter, Kuteesa said, in part; “…I am aware of the transactions that took place on the said land and I consented to the same after settling the long-standing dispute on the same land with Edith Nantumbwe Kizito, Joshua Mukalazi, Daudi Kiwuta Kizito and Erina Nankya, with whom we were in court. However, I recall having granted a Power of Attorney to a company known as Mineral Point (U) Limited but, having realised that the officials of the said company were acting outside the Power of Attorney, I revoked the Power of Attorney as far back as 2013, upon which I took personal control of the matter.

Kuteesa’s letter to the commissioner

The revocation was equally served to the Principal Registrar Lands’ Office.

“I went ahead and wrote to M/s Kanyeihamba & Co. Advocates, the then lawyers for Mineral Point (U) Limited, requesting the certificate of title. They, in turn, brought the revocation to the company’s attention and advised the company to return the certificate of title, but the company did not take heed. I have personally suffered incidents of persecution, harassment and intimidation by Sam Ahamya, who purports to represent Mineral Point (U) Limited, yet I revoked the Power of Attorney as earlier stated. The said Sam Ahamya is bent on grabbing the land, which in any case has been transferred to another person which transfer I recognise. As regards the court orders referred to in the letter, since we amicably settled the dispute, the court orders were overtaken by events.

“Iam of the considered view that, since I am satisfied with the settlement and I am not complaining, you should exercise your discretion to decide whether the intended hearing is necessary, given the circumstances……,” concludes Kuteesa.

This letter was signed by Kuteesa and endorsed with a thumbprint before her attorney, Asuma Kabali. It was copied to, among others, the Minister of Lands, the State Minister of Lands, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Lands, and Ahamya Associates & Advocates.