Court saves gov’t from paying shs7.4b in land compensation

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The High Court Land Division Judge, Bernard Namanya has saved the government from paying 7.4 billion Shillings in land compensation.

In 2016, the same court entered a consent judgment against the government after the Attorney General representative agreed to compensate Konyen Joseph, Mugisa Alex, Kamurali Frank, Benon Mpeirwe, Kafeero Ronald, Mwereri Lukeman, Bahinguza Justine, Margaret Mutesi, Namyalo Safinah and Twegatte Ndeeba Women’s Group who claimed to own land on Plots 135-141 on Mbuya Hill Esmail road.

However, the Attorney General and the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board sought a review of the judgment that was entered in July 2016 arguing that it was made without the approval of the Attorney General. In their application for review, the two offices argued that the officer who represented the Attorney General’s office Kiyingi Josephine, the principal State Attorney admitted the judgment without the explicit authorization of the Attorney General.

According to court records, Kiyingi had informed the court that they had seen the government valuer’s report dated February 2 2016 and that they were prepared to concede to the value returned of 7.4 billion Shillings. However Kiyingi in an affidavit in support of the application told the court that, at the time she admitted government liability before the court, she did not have express authority from the Attorney General to do so.

“I have reviewed two documents that Ms. Kiyingi Josephine supposedly relied on to admit government liability…a letter dated 6 October 2014 addressed to the Solicitor General by Mr. Sam S. Male, Chairman, Divestiture Committee/ Ag. Executive Secretary; and a valuation report of the suit property dated 2 February 2016 prepared by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. However, none of these documents state that the Government has admitted to paying the respondents the sum of Shs 7.4 billion,” the judge said.

He added that for anyone to admit liability, this admission must satisfy certain conditions such as being; unambiguous. “The position of the law is that before entering a judgment on admission, the court must be satisfied that the admission by a party is clear, plain, obvious and unambiguous. The admission must leave no room for doubt. If a case involves complicated questions, the court should decline to exercise its discretion to enter judgment on admission,” the judge held.

He therefore agreed to set aside the judgment.“I am satisfied with the evidence adduced by the Attorney General that he did not authorise the admission of government liability to pay compensation of Shs 7.4 billion to the respondents.

Accordingly, there is sufficient reason under the law, to review and set aside the judgment on admission entered by the court…” the judge held. The ten respondents had argued that once the court determines an issue, it can’t change it.

They argued that if the Attorney General and the Custodian Board wanted the judgment to be set aside, they should appeal the judgment instead. However, the judge observed that it is settled law that any person considering himself or herself aggrieved by a judgment of the court, may apply for a review in the same court which passed the decision.

*****

URN