Gen. Kayanja Loses 19-year-old Land Case

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to cancel a land tilted held by a retired UPDF officer, Maj. Gen. Elly Kayanja and his wife Jennifer Kayanja. In a lead judgment by Justice Florence Nakachwa, the Court of Appeal ruled that Kayanja had taken advantage of a vulnerable people to fraudulently take over their land. Kayanja and his wife were appealing a High Court decision that had held that the land title of the land measuring 53.64 hectares [132.5 acres] located at Kabulengwa in Wakiso district be cancelled after the land had been acquired fraudulently.

“The lst Appellant availed himself to the Respondents under the disguise of assisting them to solve the dispute between them and Miriam Kikomeko but instead turned around to connive with Miriam Kikomeko in order to procure registration himself and the 2nd Appellant. Thereafter, he directed the Respondents to vacate the suit land claiming to be the new landlord. He insisted on purchasing the suit land even after being informed that Miriam Kikomeko had no power to sell it.

ln my view, those acts constitute dishonesty. He indeed took advantage of the Respondents’ trust who believed that he was going to save them from the long standing dispute over the suit land, considering his position in the security. He betrayed them and instead fuelled the dispute by getting himself and the 2nd Appellant registered on the title of the suit land,” Justice Nakachwa said in her judgement.

Six residents of Kabulengwa namely: Mudiima Issa, Kyendo Ahmed, Mayambala Henry, Walakira Deo, Matovu Michael and Muzula Abdul on behalf of others, in 2009 dragged Kayanja, his wife Jennifer and a one Miriam Kikomeko to court complaining that they were lawful occupants of the 132-acre land. They wanted court to order the registrar of tittles to cancel the title to the suit land, issue a permanent injunction restraining the Kayanjas from interfering with their quiet occupation and enjoyment of the suit land and general damages.

In the suit, the residents claimed that they were occupants on part of a bigger parcel of land owned by the Kabaka of Buganda in the area. That sometime in 1978, a one Kikomeko Cephas applied for and was granted a lease by the Kabaka of Buganda for an initial period of five years which was set to expire on the December 11th, 1983.

However, the grant of this lease was vehemently opposed by the residents on the ground that it had been fraudulently acquired as Kikomeko had made a number of false statements about the land leading to the grant. They claimed that the incidence led to a number of deaths among the said residents and finally claiming the life of Kikomeko himself on the in 1983.

Additionally, the the residents contended that Kikomeko died before renewing the lease on the land and following its expiry, the land reverted to the Kabaka. They stated that nobody from the Kikomeko family ever renewed or claimed that lease until the Miriam Kikomeko purportedly did so sometime in 1997; that registration was also strongly resisted by the residents. It was then that they sought the support of Kayanja who was then an active member of the UPDF.

However, Kayanja apparently connived with Miriam Kikomeko and he and his wife became the new landlords. Kayanja ordered the residents to vacate his land or else risk eviction. This forced these residents to drag Kayanja to court which ordered the cancellation of the title and the compensation of the residents.

Dissatisfied, Kayanja together with his wife and Miriam Kikomeko appealed the decision in the court of appeal which he has also lost. “As rightly held by the trial court, in the earlier meetings with the Respondents, the 1st Appellant was made aware of the subsisting dispute over ownership between Miriam Kikomeko and the Respondents,” observed the judge.

“That fact was also admitted by Kayanja during cross examination when he testified that before he bought the suit land, he attended about two meetings with the Respondents and that there were divergent views about the land in that; one group informed him that the land belongs to the Kabaka, another group claimed that it belonged to the late Kikomeko, and yet another group informed him that the one purporting to sell to him the land was not its correct owner”

Justice Nakachwa ruled: “Pursuant to the foregoing analysis, this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed and the trial judge’s judgment and orders are upheld.” SHe thuis ordered the cancellation of Miriam Kikomeko and the Kayanjas from the certificates of title on the land. She also ordered Kayanja to pay the costs of the appeal-URN.

Read Next Article