Lawyers dismissed claims that the High Court issued contradicting judgments regarding the dispute over ownership of land at Mulago roundabout near Wandegeya in Kampala. The lawyers also backed the court decision that a legal officer at State House is not vested with powers under any law to contradict and or review a court order.
The lawyers say that the High Court rightly ruled that Ms Sandra Ndyomugyenyi wrongly cleared Dr Lule Ntwatwa, to take possession of a disputed land contrary to the earlier court orders. Mr Brian Rubihayo said that Ms Sandra Ndyomugyenyi, a legal officer attached to State House purportedly set aside and or defied court orders that ruled in favour of Pr Daniel Walugembe regarding ownership of the disputed Kibanja at Mulago Roundabout near Wandegeya.
“Ms Ndyomugyenyi is faulted for making a decision against a court order. The powers of the state house legal department is to advise on matters relating to the state house but has no powers to contradict court decisions or determine land ownership,” said Mr Rubihayo, describing the State House legal department as a law firm.
According to Mr Rubihayo, the report by the state house lawyer ordered the Resident City Commissioner (RCC) and the DPC of Wandegeya to evict Pr Walugembe, a lawful Kibanja owner with various court orders and indeed he was evicted from part of his Kibanja.
Addressing journalists in Kampala, Mr Rubihayo dismissed media statements claiming that there are contradicting court decisions saying that in the first case; Albinos Asiimwe, a tenant on the Kibanja sued Ms Ndyomugyenyi and his case was dismissed. “There was no court order in favour of Asiimwe but for Pr Walugembe, there are several orders in his favour and court based on the same orders to fault Ms Ndyomugyenyi for interfering with matters already decided by court. She is not in court and cannot act as such,” he said.
Court records show that on June 13, 2023, Ms Ndyomugyenyi authored a report in which she directed one Dr Lule Ntwatwa to be allowed to use his land without any disturbance from other parties claiming interest unless court pronounces itself otherwise. Justice Boniface Wamala quashed the order reasoning that Ms Ndyomugyenyi disguised the directive as a recommendation which was unlawful.
“…the directive allowing Dr Ntwatwa Lule to use his land without any disturbance from other parties claiming interest unless court pronounces itself otherwise contradicts this express order of court and is out rightly illegal,” the judge ruled.
Court records show that Ms Ndyomugyenyi convened a meeting, investigated a dispute over land and came to her conclusion different from the findings reached in earlier decisions by court and that she also made a directive that was not based on any orders of court.
Justice Wamala held that Ms Ndyomugyenyi understood to mean that her directive carried the force of law and that it could only be varied if a party went to court which exposed her for not basing on court pronouncements over the same property.
Records show that the high Court in two cases of 2000 and 2017 decreed that the Kibanja in dispute belongs to Pr Walugembe. In 2019, the court dismissed with costs a case in which Dr Ntwatwa and 99 others had sought to challenge Pr Walugembe’s interest in the said Kibanja which was never appealed.
“The worst case scenario was in HC miscellaneous application number 1710 of 2021: Walugembe Daniel Vs Attorney General and 8 others, the court issued an order of temporary injunction in favour of Walugembe against the respondents restraining them from evicting or interfering with his utilization or development of the Kibanja,” the court observed.
Related
Lawyer Accuses State House Official of Interfering with Court Orders in Katanga Land Dispute
