Court throws out challenge on ownership of Namboole stadium land

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | High Court Judge Bernard Namanya has dismissed an application challenging the ownership of part of the land comprising Mandela National Stadium at Namboole.

The administrators of the estate of the late Keresipo Kitaka which owned 16 acres of land at Namboole wanted the court to cancel a consent agreement which they signed with the Uganda Land Commission giving up any interests they had in the land.

In their suit, Norah Nabagesera, Christine Nakazi, Justine Nassuna, Agatha  Namutebi and Rosette  Namayanja against Uganda Land Commission, they allege that they signed a consent agreement forfeiting their interests without understanding its contents. However, in his ruling, the judge said there was ample evidence to show that the applicants properly understood the content and implications of the consent agreement.

“There is ample evidence to prove that the applicants knowingly and voluntarily, agreed to the terms of the impugned consent judgment. I am satisfied that the applicants knew the implications of their signature on the consent judgment. The applicants knew what they were doing, and understood the full implications of the consent judgment. By signing the consent judgment, the applicants acknowledged that 33 years ago, in 1991, the government of Uganda compensated them for the 16 acres of land at Namboole, that was compulsorily acquired. The compensation was received by the late James Nsubuga, in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of the late Keresipo Kitaka. There is evidence to prove, that the late James Nsubuga received the compensation, as per the above letter authored by the Bank of Uganda,” the judge ruled.

The judge also noted that the applicants are fully bound by the consent judgment and must respect it and therefore rejected their plea, that they did not understand the terms of the consent judgment when they appended their signature. “The impugned consent judgment was not meant to provide fresh compensation to the applicants, but rather to acknowledge that the estate of the late Keresipo Kitaka, was fully compensated for the 16 acres of land at Nambole way back in 1991; and that the land was compulsorily acquired by the government of Uganda…I hereby dismiss the application to set aside the consent judgment entered by the court on 6 July 2018, between the applicants and Uganda Land Commission,” the judge ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the application.

Background

On July 6, 2018, the Uganda Land Commission entered a consent judgment, concerning land at Mandela National Stadium Namboole, following a civil suit No.153 of 2016. In that consent judgment, the parties agreed that, 16 acres of land, were legally acquired by the government and that the applicants were fully compensated, and that the compensation was received by James Nsubuga, an executor of the estate of the late Keresipo Kitaka.

In 1989, the government compulsorily acquired land for the construction of Mandela National Stadium at Namboole parts of which was Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 263 land at Kirinya measuring 16 acres. At that time, the land was registered in the names of James Nsubuga and Norah Nabagesera, who were entered as the registered proprietors in their capacity as the executor and executrix of the estate of the late Keresipo Kitaka.

Records from the Bank of Uganda show that when the land was acquired, the government paid 10 million Shillings in 1991 as compensation. However, in 2016, Nabagesera and Nsubuga filed a civil suit No.153 of 2016 against the Uganda Land Commission which was heard exparte, and judgment was delivered in their favour by Justice Namundi Godfrey, in August 2017.

The court ordered that the registrar of titles cancel the registration of the Uganda Land Commission from the certificate of title in favour of  Nsubuga and Nabagesera. However, in 2020, the Uganda Land Commission challenged the exparte judgment which was also rejected by the court. However, the Commission and the applicants signed a consent agreement where it was agreed that the land belonged to the ULC and that the applicants had been compensated.

However, in a turn of events, the applicants filed another application challenging the consent agreement. They alleged that they had been promised money to take Nsubuga to a hospital abroad. But he died before the money came which made them seek to walk away from the agreement as the use of the was to take Nsubuga to hospital. But in his ruling, Namanya said there was no doubt that the government had already compensated them.

****

URN