NSSF LUBOWA PROJECT BURRIED IN GRAVEYARD: Lands Commissioner Orders For Cancellation Of NSSF Lubowa Title

The acting commissioner of lands Baker Mugaino after thorough investigations on the contentious land has released a report faulting NSSF. NSSF bought Land comprised in FRV 402 Folio 13 Block 269 Plot 4,323 and 1322, from Uganda Company Holdings Ltd in 2003.

All shareholders of Uganda Company Holdings Ltd are foreigners, they could not hold a valid land title in Freehold tenure to pass onto NSSF since the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and Section 40(4)(5)(6)(7) of the land Act forbids foreigners from holding Freehold or Mailo proprietary interest in land.

The report also indicates that the certificate of title comprised in FRV 402 Folio 13 Block 269 Plots 274 and 323 and 1322 measuring 285.07 Acres registered in the name of NSSF appear on the same Certificate of Title without following the amalgamation of titles which explains its overs laid down Proral and Kalamazoo.

NSSF did not explain NSSF did short on not explain how plot 50 only 0.797 acres came to create plot 1322 of of186.6 acres.

As explained by the CSM and others, this was not practically possible. The certificate of title has three deed prints for the respective plots Mailo instructions to survey plot1322-MAIZI2/0253, plots 274 and 323 have no instructions to survey and this explains why they were not digitized and vectorized in the current land management system due to the irregularities sighted above.

The above implies that land comprised FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 9plot 3234, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 10 PLOT 3235, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 11 PLOT 3236, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 12 PLOT 3237, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 13 PLOT 3238, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 14 PLOT 3239, FRV WAK6129 FOLIO 15 PLOT 3240, were registered inaccordance with land board grants under S.59 and 64 of the Land Act.

The claim by the Estate of the Late Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa could not be established in the records at the Registry kept by the Commissioner Land Registration as FC and PC are closed under 32 of the RTA, limited by the limitation Act because they are civil innature and above all they have been rejected by court.

Once an illegality has been put to the attention of the office such an illegality cannot stand under S.91 of the Land Act. ( same principle applied by the supreme court in Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga SCCA No. 4/81) quite baffling why the plaintiff as a 3d descendant would turn up in 2017 to claim property which does not even belong to him.

Unfortunately, courts have been laboured to face numerous land disputes like the instant where even the very last descendants to a deceased arise decades later to bring claims in the pretext of “Fighting”for what they assume to belong to them. This must stop. The law on succession was designed in a way to protect the courts from such scenarios.

In the premises therefore find that both the Plaintiffs did not have locus standing to bring this suit. Thus upholding this objection has the effect of objection and therefore succeeds.
Disposing of the matter.

The pleading does not show that his father had an interest in the disputed land and no mention of his father’s presence on the land is alluded to.

As mentioned in the facts above the above land isn’t in the will of Prince Ssuna Kiwewa.Therefore, guided by the ruling of the principal judge in the above case third generational claimants shouldn’t claim estates that their fathers never claimed, I find the above claim unattainable on ground of illegality.

As stated earlier final certificates and provisional certificates were these registers only ran instruments at were time of retained, implying that they didn’t get an MRV and block and plot title by 1961, had no interest to claim.

Therefore, PCs and FCs aren’t evidence of ownership of land today but just a record of it as it was 100 years ago!
Relying on them would imply a redistribution of the 1900 Buganda land agreement as it was then yet the land register has moved on! The fact they never acquired an MRV and a title on the block and plot register means t that these claims were not valid by 1961 when the colonialists made the final transition on Mailo land.

On assertion of independence of 1962, any claims based on the 1900 British Agreement with Buganda lost expired! Therefore, new mailo titles cannot be delivered today except by subdivision of an existing title, an amalgamation of existing titles and closure of the blue page.