Get documents about "REPORT ON ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALELEASE AND MISHANDLING OF MATTERS
W
Document Sample
REPORT ON
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALE/LEASE
AND
MISHANDLING OF MATTERS CONCERNING
PLOT 61 YUSUF LULE ROAD
(FORMERLY KITANTE ROAD): TS.123.2005
INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT
MARCH 2007
REPORT ON ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALE/LEASE AND
MISHANDLING OF MATTERS CONCERNING PLOT 61 YUSUF LULE
ROAD (FORMERLY KITANTE ROAD): TS.123.2005
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This office received a complaint concerning rampant forgeries of
land titles, unauthorized lifting of caveats and general
malpractices, involving allegations of bribery and unauthorized
transfers in the Land Registry of Ministry of lands, Water and
Environment. Various cases were sited among which was the
fraudulent sale and transfer of title for plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
to Park Royal Ltd allegedly involving officials in Kampala City
council, Lands Registry, Movement Secretariat and Attorney
General’s Office.
1.2 On commencement of the investigations it was found that the
Inspectorate of Government had earlier carried out an
investigation in one of the complaints concerning Plot 61 Yusuf
Lule Road under TS.142/1997. It was noted that the
recommendations made in TS.142/1997 were not implemented
by the authorities who were supposed to implement them most
likely due to connivance and collusion of officers responsible in
the Ministry of Lands Water and Environment with Park Royal
Ltd (Mr. Pradip Karia, Councillor then in KCC and Chairperson of
Finance Committee) represented by Sebalu & Lule Advocates
and Legal Consultants who wanted to defraud Government of
the land situated on Plot 61 Yusuf Rule Road under false
misrepresentation that the land was a statutory lease to KCC
where as not. Failure to implement the recommendations by the
relevant authorities mainly KCC and Land Administration
2
Department facilitated the fraud hence the current investigation
to establish whether and how the fraud occurred.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
In view of the above, the Inspectorate of Government initiated
investigations with the following issues,
2.1 Whether Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road had a title and who was the
registered proprietor of the Plot.
2.2 Whether Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road was fraudulently sold and a
land title forged in favour of Park Royal Ltd.
2.3 Whether there was financial loss caused to government as a
consequence of the fraudulent sale of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road.
2.5 Whether there was abuse of office by government officials
involved.
3.0 LAWS APPLICABLE
3.1 The Constitution of Uganda 1995
3.2 The Land Act – Cap 227
3.3 The Inspectorate of Government Act 2002
3.4 Registration of Titles Act – Cap 223
3.5 The Local Government Act Cap 243
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Documents
The following files and documents were reviewed:
a) File No LRV 180 Folio 3 Plot 61 Kitante Road
3
b) File No LRV 3293 Folio 19 Plot 61 Kitante Road
c) Lands office Inspectorate file reference MP 10640
d) KCC file for Plot 61 Kitante Road.
e) KCC Minute No KDLB5/14/2004.
f) Letter dated 6th May 2004 ref SL3020/46995 from the
lawyers of Park Royal to the Chairman, Kampala District Land
Board applying for a lease.
g) Letter dated 16/9/2004 ref KDLB/ACC/2004 from the
Secretary KDLB communicating the grant of lease to Park
Royal.
h) Minutes of the KCC Finance Committee dated 23/2/1996
which approved revised premium.
i) Inspectorate of Government report dated July 1997.
j) The letter of the chairperson Uganda Land Commission to
Solicitor General dated 17th May, 2004.
k) Consent Judgment ref: HCCS 1589 of 2000 dated 28 April
2004 and dismissal of Miscellaneous Application by Uganda
Land Commission Vs Attorney General, Chief Registrar of
Titles and Park Royal Ltd.
l) A report dated 1st March, 2004 by Ms Oguli to the National
Political Commissar.
m) The letter dated 23 April 2004 ref: DLA/1 from the Director
Legal Affairs - Movement Secretariat to the Attorney General.
n) Letter dated 13th May 2004 from the Director Legal Affairs –
Movement Secretariat to the occupants of Plot 61 Kitante
Road.
o) Letter dated 19th September 1996 Ref AD/71/95 from the
Administrative Officer, Movement Secretariat to the
Permanent Secretary Ministry of Housing and Physical
4
Planning indicating the amount of money used to renovate
the house on Plot 61 Kitante Road.
p) Correspondences related to the payment of shs.6,000,000
vide cheque No. 103790 by Property Services Ltd to the
Movement Secretariat
q) Receipts of payments of ground rent in respect of Plot 61
Kitante Road to KCC.
r) Letter dated 19th December2006 ref. ADM7/168/01 from the
Solicitor General to the Permanent Secretary Ministry of
Lands, Housing and Urban Development giving legal opinion
on sale of Government poll And Institutional houses in
Mityana Town Council.
s) A letter from Hon. Minister Dr C.W.C.B Kiyonga dated
22/1/2007 in response to ours dated 15/1/2007 seeking
clarification on the fraudulent sale of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road.
t) A letter dated 11/1/2007 ref. AD71/07 from Jacob Assimwe,
special Presidential Assistant/ Political Affairs (NRM Civilian
Veterans and former Administrative Officer – NRM Secretariat
clarifying on the allocation of the house to NRM Secretariat.
4.2 Physically inspected the property comprised in plot 61 Kitante
Road.
5
4.3 Interviewed the following:
Name Designation
a Mr. Mayanja Nkangi Chairman ULC
b Mr. Mubala Secretary, ULC
c Mr. Tibisaasa J Commissioner, Land Registration(interdicted)
d Mr. Karibwende E Ag Commissioner Land Registration
e Mr. Mpagi Chairman, Kampala District Land Board
f Mr. Kabuye Ahmad Secretary, Kampala District Land Board
g Mr. Nyombi Robert Registrar of titles (interdicted)
h Ms Mukasa Mulinde Kintu Asst. Commissioner Land Inspection
i Ms Irene Kalikwani Occupant
j Mr. Luboowa Godfrey Principal Housing Officer, Ministry of Works,
Transport and Communications
k Mr. Kermundu Gilbert Senior Assistant Valuer- KCC
l Mr. Sam Serwanga Senior State Attorney
m Mr. Mungoma Stephen Advocate
n Captain Awich Pollar Former Legal Assistant to the NPC
o Ms. Bagonza Jane Lands Officer/Ag Secretary KDLB
P Mr. Fox Odoi Oywelowo Senior Private Secretary to H.E. the
President – Legal
q Mr. Paul Mungati Valuation Surveyor KCC
r Ms Margaret Oguli Oumo Former Director Legal Affairs, Movement
Secretariat- She responded to the allegations
in letter dated 21/9/2006 See Appendix XL
s Ms Kashabe Jolly Former Occupant
6
The following implicated witnesses and former occupant of the
house on Plot 61 were invited to defend themselves in accordance
to Section 25 of the Inspectorate of Government Act but refused to
attend. See Appendix XXXIV(a-e)
1. Mr Pradip Karia – Councilor – Kampala Central Division and
Director of Property Services Ltd
2. Mr. Virani – Director Park Royal Ltd
3. Ms Pamela Ndyahabwe Pamela former occupant of Plot 61
was contacted on phone but kept saying that she was busy
attending to her sick mother.
5.0 SCOPE
This investigation covers transactions on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road – Kampala from the time of issuance of the first
investigations report by the Inspectorate of Government
through the time the fraud was facilitated.
6.0 FINDINGS
6.1 Whether Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road had a title and who
was the registered proprietor of the plot.
6.1.1 Records in the Land Registry indicate that in January 1939 the
Crown Government granted a lease of Plot 61 to Abdul
Rheman Janmahomed Jaffer for 49 years. The lease was
registered in Leasehold register volume 180 Folio 3. On 24th
November 1949 Jaffer transferred his lease interest to Vasanji
Haridas Kotecha and on 10th August 1955 Kotecha transferred
his interest to Kiwala Tea Estates Ltd. On 28th July 1965 Kiwala
7
Tea Estate transferred and surrendered the land to the
Uganda Land Commission.(See Appendix Ia and copy of
transfer below). Needless to say that the land reverted to
Government under the control of Uganda Land Commission.
The Uganda Land Commission was the registered proprietor of
the said Plot 61 Kitante Road, since 1965 until 2004 when Park
Royal Ltd was fraudulently registered as the proprietors as
will be indicated in this report.(See Appendix Ib).
8
6.1.2 Scrutiny of the land file MP 10640 indicated that after the transfer
of Plot 61 to Uganda Land Commission there were no more
transactions to show a lessee and a lessor relationship between
Uganda Land Commission and KCC, which implied that the land
had reverted to the Uganda Land Commission.
6.1.3 There is evidence that the Land Registry way back in 1997, was
aware and had confirmed to the Inspectorate of Government
that Plot 61 belonged to ULC and Land Administration
department and K.C.C. had never re-entered the plot on expiry
of the lease in 1988. The evidence is contained in the letters
written by Charles K. Okolongo, then Commissioner Land
Administration dated 27th March 1997. If it was KCC land it
ought have re-entered (See Appendix II) and another letter
by Mr. Tibisaasa Jonathan, Commissioner Land Registration
dated 27th October, 1997, also confirmed that the land belongs
to ULC (See Appendix III).
6.1.4 Mr. Charles Okolongo’s letter was in response to a demand note
for ground rent from KCC to Uganda Land Commission. The
letter stated as follows,
“I have verified the Kampala City Council demand note for
rates for plot No 61 Kitante Road. The property belongs to
Uganda Land Commission though the 49 years lease expired
31st December 1988. Kampala City Council has never re-
entered. Further we did not value the house for sale under
pool Houses sale Scheme. Please make arrangements to pay
shs 324,981.”
9
It should be noted that K.C.C. could not have re-entered the
plot because the plot was not theirs in the first place.
6.1.6 The topographical survey map maintained by Ministry of Works and
Transport represents the property on Plot 61 Kitante Road as a
Government institutional house allocated to Ministry of Defence.
However, due to transfers and restructuring of government
departments, the National Movement Secretariat (NRM) at one
time occupied the house and currently is being occupied by
President’s office. In a letter dated 11/1/2007 ref. AD/71/07 Mr
Jacob. K. Asiimwe, the former Administrative Officer NRM
Secretariat confirmed that the house on plot 61 was allocated to
NRM Secretariat by Ministry of Public Service as a Government pool
house. Mr Asiimwe stated that in a letter dated 18/4/1988 ref.
HCC/N/16 Ministry of Housing and urban Development authorized
renovation of the house on Plot 61which clearly shows that this
was Government Property allocated to the NRM Secretariat.
6.1.7 According to Godfrey Lubowa, a Principal Housing Officer in the
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications the house
was not valued for resale because the tenant Ministry had never
declared the property a non-core to qualify for sale.
6.1.8 Mr. Tibisaasa the interdicted Commissioner of Land Registration
was interviewed and stated that he was not able to conclude
on the issue of ownership of plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road because it
requires interpreting the various legal provisions. Despite the
fact that he does not dispute what he wrote in a letter dated
27th October 1997 to the IGG acknowledging receipt of the
report on plot 61 under TS 142/96. He was merely not being
10
truthful and this confirms the connivance. The letter reads “I
acknowledge receipt of your letter, Ts 142/96 of 17th October,
1997 and LRV 180 Fol/3 and MP 10640. Much as I needed to
know your findings and recommendations, I reckon that the
main stakeholders in the matter are Uganda Land Commission
and the Department of Land Administration. I advise that you
inform them accordingly.”
6.1.9 The Ag. Commissioner Land Registration, Mr. Karibwende
Edward also stated that the department of Land
Administration/Inspectorate is in a better position to clarify on
the ownership of land in Uganda. He however added that
before 1995, on expiry of a lease, the Controlling Authority
could allocate the land to any interested developer including the
lessee. He said that the current constitutional arrangement
(after 1995 Constitution) the controlling Authority should not
have granted a lease on the land (Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road)
without asking the sitting tenant (ULC) whether it was still
interested in the land. (But that could not be the position
because the lease that expired was a Crown Grant to Kiwala Tea
Estates not to the controlling Authority-KCC)
6.1.10 The Asst Commissioner Land Administration/ Inspectorate, Mrs.
Mulinde Mukasa Kintu was also interviewed and stated that her
interpretation is that Uganda Land Commission acquired the
interest Kiwala Tea estates had in Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road and
that interest expired with the lease. She said when the lease
expires it reverts to the Controlling Authority which in the case
of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road is KCC/ Kampala District Land Board.
11
(It should however be noted ULC which was the proprietor had
never given KCC 99 year lease or freehold).
6.1.11 Ms. Mulinde stated that her other interpretation of the law is
that since all land belongs to the people, Kampala District Land
Board is supposed to allocate land which is not occupied or
owned by anybody at the time of coming into force of the Land
Act 1998. (Also note that ULC had never leased this particular
plot, so reversion to controlling authority does not arise).
6.1.12 According to the Secretary Uganda Land Commission, Mr.
Mubbala, the issue of statutory lease on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
does not arise because the 1995 Constitution abolished
statutory leases (Article 285 of the Constitution). He said that
the abolition of statutory leases meant that all land that was
under Urban Authorities by Statute reverted to original owners.
6.1.13 Mr. Mubbala further stated that the Uganda Land Commission
under a misconception applied for renewal of lease in 2000 after
Kampala City Council, through the Kampala District Land Board,
had erroneously allocated it to someone else in 1996. (See
Appendix IV)
6.1.14 The Chairman Uganda Land Commission, Mr. Mayanja Nkangi
was approached for interview but referred the investigator to his
affidavits which he had sworn in support of an application the
Uganda Land Commission had made in court to protect
Government interest in Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road. This was when
Park Royal filed a case against the Attorney General and the
Attorney General had not sought instructions from ULC to
12
represent it. In his Affidavit dated 22/6/2004 Mr. Mayanja
Nkangi affirmed that Uganda Land Commission were registered
proprietors of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road after Kiwala Tea Estates
Ltd surrendered its remaining lease and interest therein to ULC
and that ULC had carried out developments on the land.
6.1.15 The Lands Officer, KCC Ms. Jane Bangoza confirmed that Plot 61
Yusuf Lule Road was not a statutory lease because it had its
own title under LRV 180 folio 3. She stated that KCC could have
brought in the issue of statutory lease to justify the powers of
KCC to allocate the Plot. She further added that by the fact that
Uganda Land Commission was the registered proprietor there
was a government interest.
6.1.16 Observations
6.1.17 It is not true that in 1988 when the lease to Kiwala Tea Estate
expired the land reverted to KCC, the purported controlling
authority, because in 1965 when the lessee then, Kiwala Tea
Estates, transferred Plot 61 (Kitante Road) Yusuf Lule Road to
ULC and ULC paid for the remaining years it meant that the
lessee had surrendered back the land to the proprietor in 1965,
the Government of Uganda, for whom ULC was the manager of
the property. It is the lease to Kiwala Tea Estates, which had
been surrendered to ULC that expired, not ULC ownership.
Uganda Land Commission (ULC) is a body established under the
Constitution Articles 238 and 239 to hold and manage any land
in Uganda vested in or acquired by the Government of Uganda.
Section 47 (1) & (2) of the Land Act No 16 of 1998 provides
that “ there shall be a Commission to be known as the Uganda
13
Land Commission. The Commission shall be a body corporate
with perpetual succession and a common seal, and may sue or
be sued in its corporate name. Under Section 50 of the Land Act
No 16 of 1998 Uganda Land Commission is mandated to
perform the following functions;
I. To hold and manage any land in Uganda which is vested in
or acquired by the Government in accordance with the
Constitution
II. Where applicable, hold and manage any land acquired by
Government abroad, except that the Commission may
delegate the management of such land to Uganda’s missions
abroad.
III. Procure certificates of title for any land vested in or acquired
by the Government.
IV. Perform such other functions as may be prescribed by or
under this act or any other enactment.
Prior to the 1995 Constitution and Land Act 1998 (as amended),
there was the Public Lands Act 1969 (repealed) which Act made
provision for the vesting control and management of Public
Lands and other matters relating to the Land Commission and
Land Committees among others. In Section (1) thereof it
provided as follows,” It is hereby declared that subject to the
provisions of this Act all rights, titles, estates and interest in
land immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall
upon such commencement continue to be so vested for the
same estate or interest and to the same extent as they were
previously vested. Section 2 provided for “the Uganda Land
Commission shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession
14
and common seal and may sue and be sued under the name of
the Uganda Land Commission.
In 1969 Uganda land Commission was the registered proprietor
of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road and therefore ULC had reversionary
and actual interest in 1988 when the lease that the Crown
Government had granted to Kiwala Tea Estate expired in
1988,but after Kiwala Tea Estate surrendered the remaining
lease to Uganda Land Commission on payment of shs
130,000/=(one hundred and thirty thousand) as clearly seen in
the title including the transfer instrument. See Appendix 1.
The Certificate of Title clearly states that the proprietor was
Uganda Land Commission NOT Kampala City Council (KCC)
6.1.18 In 1988 when the lease allegedly expired, KCC did not re-enter
the land comprised in Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road, if it was indeed
its land leased to them by ULC. In the IGG report (1997)
paragraph 5.7 the IGG observed that “KCC is a statutory tenant
of ULC. Where KCC offers a lease, Uganda Land Commission is
the eventual landlord. It is therefore inconceivable that KCC can
exercise re-entry on its own landlord especially where the
landlord is government itself” The plot could not belong to KCC
because this was Crown Land which the Crown Government, in
January 1939, granted a lease to Abdul Rheman Janmahom
Jaffer for 49 years. There were a couple of transfers until 1965
when the lessee then Kiwala Tea Estates, surrendered and
transferred the land back to Uganda Land Commission, the
proprietor on payment as earlier indicated. There is no evidence
that ULC or the Crown Government had granted statutory lease
of 99 years to KCC in order for it to claim ownership or
15
reversionary interest. It has also to be noted that by coming
into force of the 1995 Constitution statutory leases were
abolished. Articles 286, 237 (5) and (6) are very clear. They
provide as follows,
“Article 286. Upon the coming into force of this Constitution and
subject to the provisions of (a) of clause (2) of Article 237 of
this Constitution, statutory leases to urban authorities shall
cease to exist.”
“Article 237(5). Any Lease which was granted to a Ugandan
citizen out of public land may be converted into freehold in
accordance with a law which shall be made by Parliament.”
“Article 237(6). For purposes of clause (5) of this article, public
land” includes statutory leases to urban authorities.”
It is apparent that if Plot 61 belonged to KCC it ought have been
re-entered but not to wait until 1995 and 2004 when it grabbed the
same without giving the notice to ULC as required by law despite
the fact that there was a registered caveat by ULC in 2004 as will
be seen later in this report. The Caveat was registered on
22/7/2004 while the second title in respect of Park Royal Ltd was
registered on 20/10/2004 when the caveat was still in force.
6.1.19 KCC has never been in control of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
because in 1969 when KCC was granted statutory control over
land within Kampala City Council under the Public Lands Act
1969(repealed), Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road had already reverted to
Uganda Land Commission in 1965 as already indicated above.
See Appendix 1”.
16
6.1.20 There was a misconception that ULC was a lessee which forced
ULC to apply to KCC for a renewal of lease. ULC applied twice to
KDLB though the Board never considered the applications.
According to Mr. Kabuye, Secretary KDLB the Board could not
consider the application because Park Royal had taken the
matter to court contesting the IG recommendation to cancel the
illegal allocation of the land by KCC to Park Royal. This
misconception was made clear by the letter the Chairperson of
ULC wrote to the Solicitor General dated 17/5/2004 (see
Appendix XIV)
6.2 Whether Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road was fraudulently sold and
a land title forged in favour of Park Royal Ltd
6.2.1 On 23rd June 1995 KCC granted a Lease on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
to Park Royal Ltd under minute LMC 7/150/95 of the Planning and
Land Management Committee meeting. The minute partly states,
“The Committee was informed that the above plot (plot No. 61,
Kitante Road) was held under LRV180, Folio 3 Land office file
No.10640 under a statutory lease by Kampala City Council…….
and was registered under Uganda Land Commission on 28th July
1965 under instrument 162151, The lease expired on
31/December, 1988 and the plot reverted to Kampala City
Council………It was recommended that (i) The above plot be
allocated to M/s Park Royal Ltd……(ii) Through the City Advocate,
the Statutory Lease of Council be updated” (See Appendix V).
6.2.2 The Committee was informed that Plot 61 was held under a
Statutory Lease by KCC which was a misrepresentation of fact
because the land had reverted to the owner, Uganda Land
Commission, when Kiwala Tea Estates surrendered the lease to
Uganda Land Commission. However, the minutes do not
17
indicate who informed the Committee. Furthermore, the
minutes reveal that KCC was aware that plot 61 was registered
under ULC. The meeting also requested that the City
Advocate updates the statutory lease which had expired in
1988. The above meant that when KCC granted the lease to
Park Royal Ltd it was aware it was not its land.
The City Advocate/Senior Principal State Attorney – Kampala
City Council Ms Karugonjo Josephine was interviewed and stated
that she did not attend the above meeting and the said
resolution was not communicated to her. The resolution was
overtaken by the 1995 Constitution which abolished Statutory
Leases. She further added that Statutory Leases are handled by
the Chief Town Planner and the Lands Officer not her office.
Though she declined to put it in her statement she wondered
how a Statutory Lease could be updated since the Statutory
Lease was granted by the Minister and is granted once. The
Chief Town Planner referred the IG investigator to the Lands
Officer.
6.2.3 According to KCC Lands Officer, Ms Bagonza Jane, it was
misinformation to indicate that the plot in question was held
under a statutory lease yet it had its own independent title
registered under LRV180 folio 3. She stated that though she
attended the meeting of 23rd June 1995 she could not
remember who informed the committee that plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road was held under a Statutory Lease.
18
6.2.4 When KCC allocated Plot 61 to Park Royal Ltd and before the
lease was executed and registered, M/S Park Royal Ltd
attempted to evict the occupants of the plot in question who
were government employees. These were, Ms Irene Kalikwani,
Ms Florence Tuhaise, Ms Rosette Nyakana and Ms Patrick Ngazi
and these are the ones who resisted the first attempt of Park
Royal Ltd and Pradip Karia- Director of Property Services against
defrauding the Government of Uganda of its Property and
interest therein. (see Appendix XXXVI which shows how
they got occupation of the property)
The occupants contested the eviction contending that the
property in question belongs to the Uganda Land Commission
and petitioned the Inspector General of Government for
intervention as far back as 1996.
6.2.5 The IG investigated the matter under reference TS/142/1997
and issued a report dated July 1997 (See Appendix VI). The
IG report revealed various illegalities among which were that;
1. The purported re-allocation of the plot was improperly done
when ULC and its development on the land were not
considered. ULC’s equitable interest was ignored.
2. The plot was grossly under valued and the right channels
were not followed in the allocation of the plot and reduction
of premium and rent.
3. The report further revealed that Mr. Pradip Karia, who was
the Chairman of the KCC Finance Committee and is Director
19
of Property Services, the Committee which irregularly
reduced the premium was in conflict of interest because he
was an interested party in the Plot. (See Minutes of the
Finance Committee Chaired by Pradip Karia in Appendix
XLI.
6.2.6 In view of the illegalities in the allocation of land to Park Royal
Ltd the IGG recommended among others that the allocation of
Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road to Park Royal Ltd should be cancelled
and the money paid by ParkRoyal Ltd be refunded.
6.2.7 On 24/16/97 the Registrar of Titles cancelled the lease to Park
Royal under instrument no 28309. (See Appendix VII). In a
letter dated 17th May 2000, Mr. Edward Kirebwende, Ag.
Commissioner Land Registration reaffirmed to the lawyers of
Park Royal that is Sebalu and Lule Advocates and Legal
Consultants that the office of the Inspector General had stopped
the registration of their clients (Park Royal) title for Plot 61. The
letter stated as follows:
“ We have not processed your clients title because the office
of the Inspector General of Government was investigating
the allocation of the plot to your clients recently. We
accordingly stayed action until investigations are completed
and we are advised on the next course of action.
This is to advise therefore that you first inquire from the
office of the Inspector General of Government and Kampala
District Land Board. It may well be that the offer to your
client was revoked afterall.
The delay is highly regretted. We thought your client had
informed you of the said investigations.”
20
6.2.8 Following the IGG report and cancellation of lease, Park Royal Ltd
represented by Sebalu & Lule Advocates and Legal Consultants
instituted Court proceedings under HCCS 1589 of 2000 against the
Attorney General and Chief Registrar of titles challenging the IGG
stoppage of registration of the lease to Park Royal Ltd. (See Plaint
in Appendix VIII).
6.2.9 On 29/4/2004, before the due court process could take its
course the Attorney General entered into a consent Judgement
in favour of Park Royal Ltd (See the Consent Judgement in
Appendix IX).
6.2.10 The process leading to the Consent Judgement has been
reviewed and below are the findings:
6.2.11 On 18th November 2002 Mr. A.G. Virani of Park Royal Ltd wrote
to Dr. Crispus Kiyonga, the National Political Commissar (NPC)
Movement Secretariat appealing to him to have vacant
possession of the premises located at Plot 61 Kitante Road, the
letter stated as follows:
“The above property was allocated to us in 1996 by Kampala
City Council (KCC) for development. However, our plans
have been stalled as the occupants of the building have
refused to vacate. We understand that the Movement had
put some funds into maintenance of the existing building and
we have no problem in refunding this. We are also willing to
compensate the occupants for their inconvenience in
relocating. We do not wish to create any disharmony by
resorting to litigation but we are anxious that this matter be
resolved expeditiously so that we may commence the second
phase of the Shimoni office village development. Any
assistance you can give shall be greatly appreciated”.
21
There was no response to this letter until on 27/01/2004 when the
then Movement Secretariat Director Legal Affairs Ms. Margaret
Oguli Oumo put the following comments against the above letter;
“Capt
Please copy and send back to me.
D/L 27/01/04”
“Capt Awich,
If this belonged to the Secretariat, how did Viran come to
possess it -in 1991 can you investigate this title?
D/L 27/01/04”
22
See Copy of the above mentioned letter below,
6.2.12 Captain Awich Pollar was interviewed and stated that on
receiving the above letter alleging trespass by the Movement
Secretariat on Park Royal’s land on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road, the
23
NPC – Dr. Crispus Kiyonga instructed DLA - Ms Oguli to
investigate the matter. (Note that Hon. Dr Kiyonga in a letter
dated 22/1/2007 to the IG confirmed that he was not aware of
the transactions in regard to Plot 61 Kitante Road).
Consequently, Ms. Oguli allocated the matter to him (Awich) to
investigate and make a legal opinion. Captain Awich was then a
Legal Assistant to the NPC. Captain Awich stated that his
investigations established that the house was allocated to the
Movement Secretariat. He also allegedly purported to have
established from the land Registry that the land was registered
in the names of Uganda Land Commission but the lease had
expired. He said that during his investigations he received the
IGG report of 1997 and the only issue he could pick in the
report was the under valuation of the property not the
cancellation of lease.
6.2.13 Captain Awich stated that he identified 3 parties who were
involved in the matter as;
1. Park Royal
2. The movement secretariat
3. The staff (occupants of the house on plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road)
He said he did not identify government as an interested party
separately because it was handled together with the Movement
Secretariat as an institution of Government neither did he
identify the Uganda Land Commission as an interested party
because ULC was not complaining. That he held all government
institutions together emanating from the issue concerning the
Movement Secretariat as an institution and that is why the
matter ended up with the Attorney General.
24
6.2.14 Captain Awich further stated that he was neither aware of the
IGG recommendation to cancel the lease to Park Royal nor that
the lease to Park Royal had been cancelled by the Registrar of
Titles as he did not get the document showing the cancellation
of the lease.
Captain Awich stated that after his findings as above he gave
his Legal opinion to the effect that the Movement Secretariat
could not win the case in court in the event that the Indians
(Park Royal) sued because the Movement Secretariat had not
applied to acquire the Lease interest. He however stated that
his legal opinion was not binding and the DLA (Ms. Oguli) had
the discretion to agree or not, but she concurred with his
opinion.
6.2.15 Subsequently, on 1st March 2004 Ms. M.C. Oguli Oumo then
Director Legal Affairs made a brief report to the NPC (See
Appendix X) and urged the NPC to let the Movement
Secretariat settle the matter out of Court. In paragraph 8 of the
mentioned report Ms. Oguli warned that:
“The Government of the Republic of Uganda stands to lose
more money if they do not heed to her advice by insisting to
go to court with Ms. Park Royal, the present lessee of
Kampala City Council Land Board which is by law the
controlling authority of Plot 61, Kitante Road, Kampala.”
6.2.16 On 3rd April 2004 Ms. Margaret Oguli, Director Legal Affairs
(DLA) wrote to Mr. Sam Serwanga of Attorney General’s office
calling him (Serwanga) for a meeting over court case Ref. HCCS
25
1589/2000 Park Royal Ltd VS Attorney General and Chief
Registrar of Titles. (See Appendix XI). The letter stated as
follows:
“As you are aware you are currently handling the above cited
case in court. As your client (the Secretariat) the Directorate
of Legal Affairs has been directed by the National Political
Commissar to hold a meeting with you over this case. You
are therefore asked to meet me and a legal officer in my
office on Monday 5th 2004 at 2.00 p.m.”
According to Mr. Serwanga, Senior State Attorney, he did not
attend the meeting because he was away in Ethiopia for official
duties.
6.2.17 On 19 March 2004 Mr. A.G Virani on behalf of Park Royal Ltd
wrote a reminder to Dr Crispus Kiyonga (NPC) (See Appendix
XII) and stated as follows,
“On 18th December 2002, we wrote to you a petition seeking
indulgence to hand over to us vacant possession of the
property in reference. We copied this letter to His Excellence
the president and our file copy is attached hereto for ease of
reference. Unfortunately we were not favoured with a reply.
Because we could not get this property in time to start the
second phase of Shimoni Office Village development, we
were constrained to file a civil suit. We were, however
advised by Mr. Fox Odoi-Oywelowo of state house that it was
in the best interest of ourselves as investors and the
Movement Secretariat to sort out this matter out of court to
save on both time and costs. He assured us that you had
both capacity and will to settle this matter. We were also
advised to engage your legal department to resolve this
matter.
Kindly have it resolved at your earliest convenience”.
6.2.18 Mr. Fox Odoi–Oywelowo, Senior Private Secretary to HE the
President - Legal Affairs stated that some Asians complained to
the President in writing some years back that the NRM
26
Secretariat was occupying a property that belonged to them. He
said he could not retrieve the complaint but he recalls it came to
his desk. The Asians stated that NRM Secretariat was using the
property as residences for their employees. That the Asians
also told him that they had a valid title to the property. Mr. Odoi
stated that he could not remember exactly but the Asians told
him that they had a lease from KCC or ULC. Mr. Odoi stated that
he referred the matter to the NPC - Dr Kiyonga to investigate
and sort out.
6.2.19 Mr. Odoi stated that on another occasion Ms. Oguli then DLA
Movement Secretariat rang him over the matter and he (Odoi)
told her that, if it was true that they (Asians) had a title to the
property, it was unfair for the Secretariat to stay in it without
any legal relationship with the Asians. Mr. Odoi stated that he
also advised her to investigate and sort it out.
6.2.20 Mr. Odoi stated that an Asian called Virani introduced himself to
him as the owner of the property and another one called Pradip
Karia on one occasion asked him about the action President’s
office had taken on the complaint they had lodged with the
Presidents Office concerning Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road. He (Odoi)
informed Mr. Pradip Karia that the matter was referred to the
National Political Commissar and advised Karia to inform Mr.
Virani to follow up the matter with the NPC.
6.2.21 On 23/04/2004 Mrs. Oguli wrote to the Attorney General giving
instructions to settle the suit HCCS 1589/2000 out of court (See
Appendix XIII). According to the letter, this followed a
meeting between the then Director of Legal Affairs, NRM
27
Secretariat, Ms. Oguli on one hand and Mr. Silu Virani of Park
Royal and Mr. James Sebugenyi of Sebalu and Lule Co.
Advocates (Lawyer for Park Royal Ltd) on the other, in which
meeting the Movement Secretariat reportedly agreed to
withdraw from the court case HCCS 1589/2000. The
instructions contained in the mentioned letter were stated as
follows:
“After considering all the matters surrounding the case, and
recognizing the fact that Park Royal applied for the lease of
the above premises and were granted the same, we agreed
as follows:
1. That the Movement Secretariat has no legal claim over
title to the above premises.
2. That the Park Royal would pay the Secretary
Movement Secretariat a sum of Shs.6,000,000/= (six
million shillings only) representing the value of the
development carried out on the premises.
3. Park Royal would pay to Ndyahabwe Pamela, Patrick
Agasa, Irene Kalikwani and Kashaba Jolly, staff of the
Secretariat who have been residing in the premises, an
amount of money to assist them relocate from the
premises. These staff would be identified by the
Secretary, Movement Secretariat.”
Subsequent to the above instructions on 29th April 2004 the
Attorney General (Defendants) and Park Royal (Plaintiff) entered
into a Consent Judgement (See Appendix IX). The Consent
Judgement was signed by Mr. Sam Serwanga on behalf of
Attorney General and Chief Registrar of Titles and Sebalu and
Lule advocates on Lule Advocates on behalf of Park Royal Ltd.
6.2.22 Hon. Dr Kiyonga then National Political Commissar- NRM
Secretariat and current Minister of Defence has confirmed to the
IG that he did not give instructions to Mrs Margeret Oguli Oumo
28
to advse on consent Judgement. Ia a letter dated 22/1/2007
Hon. Dr Kiyonga stated as follows,
“I was not aware of the said transaction ( sale of plot 61)and I did
not give instruction to Mrs Margret Oguli Oumo to advise on
Consent Judgment. In fact in her letter, Mrs Oumo does not claim
to have been working on my instructions.
I do not see on what basis the Movement Secretariat could instruct
the Attorney General to enter a Consent Judgment in this particular
case. The Legal Advisor to Government from who all Government
departments must seek authority is the Attorney General. It would
be irregular for the Attorney General in my view to take instructions
from any party unless he/she is convinced that there is well
grounded legal basis”.
6.2.23 According to Mr. Serwanga Sam, Senior State Attorney, who
handled the Consent Judgement, he took the instructions from
the Movement Secretariat because:
1. The suit was based on a complaint from the Movement
Secretariat.
2. The Movement Secretariat copied the letter advising
settlement to the Plaintiff who then brought it to
court’s attention before he could internalize it.
6.2.24 Observations on the process that led to the Consent
Judgement
6.2.25 In his letter dated 18th November 2002 to Dr. Crispus Kiyonga,
National Political Commissar, Mr. Virani states that: “The above
property (Plot 61) was allocated to us (Park Royal) in 1996 by
29
Kampala City Council for development. However, our plans
have been stalled as the occupants of the building have refused
to vacate”.
This statement is not true because KCC had allocated the plot
illegally and after investigations by the IGG, it was recommended
that the lease to Park Royal be cancelled. The lease was already
cancelled by the Registrar of Titles on 24/10/97. Mr. Virani
deceitful excluded this fact in the letter.
6.2.26 Mr. Virani further states “we do not wish to create any
disharmony by resorting to litigation but we are anxious that
this matter be resolved expeditiously so that we may commence
the second phase of the Shimoni office village development”.
This statement is also not true because Park Royal Ltd had
already gone to court on 17/11/2000 challenging the IGG
recommendation and the cancellation of the lease by Registrar
of Titles. See date of the plaint in Appendix VIII. Virani’s
letter is dated 18/11/2002 well after they had petitioned court
but also misrepresents this fact in the letter.
6.2.27 Mr. Virani of Park Royal and Mr. Pradip of Property Services Ltd
held themselves as the lawful allocatees of the land in question.
Their Complaint to the Movement Secretariat was that the
Movement Secretariat was trespassing on their land which was
not true because Park Royal Ltd had no valid lease having been
cancelled by the Registrar of Titles. Therefore the Consent
Judgment was obtained by false pretence on false statements
that Park Royal was the lawful Lessee of plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road where as not. The title was withheld by the ULC as
30
proprietor since it’s the lease ULC had given to Kiwala Tea
Estate that had expired.
6.2.28 As rightly put by Mrs. Oguli Oumo in her letter dated 23rd April
2004 to the Attorney General, the Movement Secretariat has no
legal claim over the title to the suit premises. It therefore
follows that the Movement Secretariat had no authority to give
instructions to the Attorney General to enter into a consent
Agreement. More to that, it has been established that NRM
were not the sitting tenants by the time the instructions were
given, the sitting tenants were President’s Office, which means
the Movement Secretariat had neither proprietary nor equitable
interest in the said premises. It just defeats a sober mind why
Ms Margret Ouma Oguli went ahead to give instructions to enter
a Consent Judgment when she was aware that the property had
nothing to do with the Movement Secretariat. Movement
Secretariat is not synonymous with Presidents Office. Movement
Secretariat is an organ of the movement system of Government
under the Movement Act and the Movement Act came in effect
under Article 70(2a) of the Constitution. The Movement
Secretariat as the organ of movement political system is
therefore different from the NRM Secretariat which was a
department in President’s Office.
6.2.29 The Inspectorate of Government has established that when Ms.
Oguli wrote the report dated 01/03/2004 to the National Political
Commissar she was aware of the IGG report (1997) because
she refers to the same report. If she had read the report she
should have known that the IGG had recommended for the
cancellation of the lease and the rightful parties had been
31
identified. The view of this office is that she did not have
authority to meddle in matters of the Uganda Land Commission
since ULC is a Body Corporate and it can speak for itself. Her
intervention/meddling was not in good faith. She even
mentions in paragraph 6 of the same report to NPC that IGG
had established under-valuation of the plot but states,
“It is not the duty of the lessee nor any organ of the
government to complain under-valuation by Kampala City
Council (KCC) especially where they are protected by law in
execution of their (Kampala City Council Land Board)
duties, See Article 241(2) of the 1995 Constitution.”
This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the law and a
misleading advice to the NPC from the Director of Legal Affairs.
As the Director of Legal Affairs Ms. Oguli should have put all
other relevant legal provisions in context especially where
the IGG had revealed conflict of interest, and lack of
transparency, among others, that led to the under-valuation
and subsequent allocation of the land to Park Royal by KCC.
6.2.30 Ms. Oguli in her report to NPC warned that the Government of
Uganda stands to lose money if they do not heed to her advice
to settle the matter out of court. It is observed that this was a
misleading advice. If Park Royal was sure it had a good case,
why was it not interested in the continuation of the court
proceedings when they were the Plaintiff? Park Royal Ltd knew
well that they would lose the court case; that is why they were
moving from office to office including President’s office trying to
look for a favourable short-cut which they clinched with the
assistance of Ms. Oguli. It is unfortunate that Ms Oguli turned
out to be the advocate of the fraudsters.
32
6.2.31 The Oguli's letter dated 23/04/2004 refers to a meeting
between herself, Mr. Silu Virani (Park Royal), and James
Sebugenyi of Sebalu and Lule Co. Advocates (Lawyers to Park
Royal). The minutes of the meeting have not been availed to
this office, indicating that the matter was handled in a
haphazard and casual manner.
6.2.32 Despite the illegalities and misrepresentations of facts as
indicated above, the Attorney General entered into a Consent
Judgement in favour of Park Royal Ltd. Notwithstanding the fact
that Attorney General never sought instructions from the
Uganda Land Commission, Mr Serwanga, Senior State Attorney
kept dealing with the Movement Secretariat , which both
Serwanga and Ms Oguli knew had neither legal or equitable
interest. The facts above indicate that the consent Judgement
was obtained by fraud aided by the then Director Legal Affairs
Ms Oguli Oumo without involving the Uganda Land Commission
who were the registered owners of the land and property
comprised in Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road, which Ms Oguli Oumo
knew very well as per her letter to the Attorney General dated
23/4/2004.(Appendix XIII)
6.2.33 The Movement Secretariat had no interest in the property
comprised in Plot 61 Kitante Road. Thus, the instructions by
Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo, Director Legal Affairs, Movement
Secretariat amounted to no instructions at all as she was not
representing Uganda Land Commission, the owner and
occupants of the plot.
33
6.2.34 Ms. Oguli-Oumo had known that Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road was
never allocated to Movement Secretariat as clearly indicated in
the letter she wrote (See Appendix XIII). But even one was
to argue that it was the property of Movement Secretariat S.34
of the Movement Act Cap. 261 is clear. It provides “All assets
and property of organs under the Movement Secretariat shall be
deemed to be assets of the state”. This means that even if the
property in issue was allocated to the Movement Secretariat,
Ms. Oguli-Oumo had no right what so ever to behave as if she
was the Procuring and Disposal Entity to dispose of Government
of Uganda property irregularly and without authority.
6.2.35 NRM Secretariat ceased to exist by the coming into force of the
1995 Constitution. Article 70 (2) provides “Parliament may (a)
create organs under the Movement Political System and define
their roles…among others”. Ms. Oguli-Oumo was DLA of
Movement Secretariat and the Movement Act didn’t provide that
the Movement Act succeeded the NRM Secretariat. Her
involvement in the disposal of the State Asset/property was
illegal and infers a malafide intention. She illegally gave
instructions to a State Attorney to enter Consent Judgement
well aware that the Movement Secretariat had neither legal nor
equitable interest in the property thus facilitating the fraud
against Government of Uganda.
6.2.36 In 1989 the following persons who were then employees of
NRM Secretariat which was under Presidents office were
allocated different areas in the property owned by ULC. They
were:
34
Ms. Irene Kalikwani
Ms. Florence Tuhaise
Ms. Rosette Nyakana
Ms. Patrick Ngazi
(See Appendix XXXVI). In 1992, one Edward Tabila was
advised to vacate the room he was occupying which was formerly
occupied by Mr. Fagil Mandy then RDC Kapchorwa. (See
Appendix XXXVII). In a communication titled “To whom it may
concern” Mr. L. Magembe of President’s office wrote among others
certifying that Ms. Irene Kalikwani of President’s Office Kampala
was the officer allocated that house on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Kitante
Road since 1992 (See Appendix XXXVIII). In amazing twist of
events in 2004 persons who were never allocated to occupy the
house in 1989 or 1992 namely (1) Agaba Patrick, Ms. Kanshabe
Jolly, Ms. Ndhahabwe Pamela with the assistance of Ms. Oguli-
Oumo (DLA- Movement Secretariat) entered into agreement with
Park Royal represented by Sebalu & Lule Advocates & Legal
Consultants to be paid Shs.1.5m to enable them re-locate (See
Appendix XXXIII). . Ms. Oguli-Oumo wrote a misleading letter
to Sebalu-Lule Co. Advocates that its NRM Secretariat which had
entered into agreement with Park Royal (Appendix XXXIX letter
dated 4th August 2004). It is evident from Appendix XXXIII that
these were individuals who couldn’t have been mistaken to be NRM
Secretariat.
6.2.37 The process after signing of the Consent Judgement
leading to revalidation of the lease and registration of
Park Royal Ltd as Proprietors of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
has been reviewed and below are the findings;
35
Following entering of the consent Judgement, the Chairman,
Uganda Land Commission wrote a letter dated 17/5/2004 to
Attorney General where he expressed his views and
categorically stated that the interests of Government in the
property were compromised by the Consent Judgement. (See
Appendix XIV).
6.2.38 As there was no response to the above letter on 18th May 2004,
Uganda Land Commission gave instructions to a private
advocate Ms Mugoma, Mabonga & Co. Advocates to apply to
court to set aside the Consent Judgement. See Appendix XV.
6.2.39 On 2nd June 2004 High Court issued an interim order staying
execution of the Consent Judgement vide HCCS 1589 of 2000
pending the hearing and determination of the application by the
Uganda Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application 433) See
Appendix XVI.
6.2.40 On 7th July 2004 Park Royal Ltd applied to court opposing the
application for stay of execution of the Consent Judgement.
Park Royal contended that the interim order for the stay of
execution was obtained by deceit as the Chief Registrar of Titles
had not given instructions to Ms Mungoma, Mabonga & Co.
Advocates. Mungoma had made the application on behalf of
Uganda Land Commission and Chief Registrar of Titles.
6.2.41 According to Mr. Mungoma, he filed the application on the
premise that Uganda Land Commission and the Chief Registrar
of Titles were challenging the Consent Judgement since it was
entered into without their consent. Mr. Mungoma stated that
36
the Chairman, Uganda Land Commission contacted the
Commissioner for Land Registration, Mr. Tibisaasa Jonathan
who promised that he would cooperate and swear an
affidavit. Thereafter, Mungoma made several trips to the
Commissioner’s office and he kept telling him (Mungoma) to
check on him (Tibisaasa). Only to be shocked by the letter from
Tibisaasa to Park Royal’s advocates, disassociating from the
proceedings.
6.2.42 On 22nd June 2004 the lawyers of Park Royal Ltd wrote to the
Commissioner Land Registration inquiring on whether he gave
instructions to M/S Mungoma, Mabonga, Wakhakha & Co.
Advocates to file an application challenging the Consent
Judgement. On 23rd June 2004 the interdicted Commissioner
for Land Registration, Jonathan Tibisaasa wrote to the lawyers
of Park Royal stating that he did not give instructions to the
mentioned lawyers. See Appendix XVII. He stated as
follows:
“I refer to your letter SL/3020/47430 of 22nd June, 2004
relating to the abovementioned land and stated, without
prejudice, that my office has not given any instructions to
M/s Mungoma, Mabonga, Wakhakha and Company
Advocates to file an application to challenge a Consent
Judgement in HCCS 1589 of 2000.”
6.2.43 According to Mr. Mungoma, Park Royal Ltd used the above
letter by the Commissioner for Land Registration to successfully
challenge the application by the Uganda Land Commission and
on 16th July 2004 the Uganda Land Commission withdrew the
application. However, Uganda Land Commission filed a fresh
37
application with Uganda Land Commission as the sole
applicant.
6.2.44 Mr. Mungoma, the Uganda Land Commission advocate stated
that Uganda Land Commission later lost the application to set
aside the Consent Judgement on grounds that Uganda Land
Commission was not a party to the main suit HCC 1589/2000.
The Uganda Land Commission filed an appeal in the Court of
Appeal challenging the High Court ruling. The case is still
pending in court.
6.2.45 On 22nd July 2004 the Chairman, Uganda Land Commission also
lodged a caveat on the title with the land Registry. The caveat
was registered vide Leasehold Register volume 180 folio 3 by
Nyombi Robert, a Registrar of Titles (See Appendix XVIII).
6.2.46 Despite Uganda Land Commission’s petition of court and the
interim court orders staying execution of the Consent
Judgement on 6th may 2004 Park Royal Ltd wrote a letter
through its lawyers Sebalu and Lule Co. Advocates ref.
SL3020/46995 to the Chairman, Kampala District Land Board
(KDBL) (See Appendix XIX) applying to the Board to
renew/revalidate the lease offer of 1995 and attached the
Consent Judgement as evidence that the dispute over the plot
had been resolved. The copy of the letter is shown below
38
39
6.2.47 On 15/6/2004 Park Royal also paid shs.6,000,000/= vide
cheque No. 103790 in favour of the Commissioner Treasury
Officer of Accounts. This was in settlement of alleged
developments by the Movement Secretariat as per term No 5 of
the Consent Judgement. It was established that, the said
developments were carried out by Presidents office when the
Movement Secretariat was a department in Presidents Office.
6.2.48 On 15/9/2004 Kampala District Land Board (KDLB) vide Minute
KDLB 5/14/2004 illegally revalidated the lease on Plot 61 Yusuf
Lule Road to Park Royal. The revalidation of the lease offer to
Park Royal was in disregard of Uganda Land Commission’s
interest in the property and proprietorship. The lease was
already legally cancelled by the Registrar of titles besides the
lease period of five years from 1/6/1996 had lapsed and the
lease expired in 2001. (See Appendix XX). Minute
KDLB 5/14/2004 states as follows,
“The Secretary to the Board presented an application for
revalidation of lease grant from Park Royal Ltd of P.O Box
4252, Kampala.
The Board was informed that Park Royal Ltd had been
granted a lease of 5 years with effect from 1/6/96 over the
above named plot, under Council Minute LMC. 7/150/95 of
26/6/95.The lease paid up all the fees specified in the lease
offer. However at the time of processing the lease
agreement the Commissioner, Land Administration
advised that the said plot belonged to Uganda Land
Commission.
The Board was further informed (it was not stated in the
minutes who was giving the information to the KDLB) that
Uganda Land Commission had been the previous registered
proprietor, having registered proprietorship on 28th July 1965
in title LRV 180 Folio 3, whose lease was 49 years w.e.f.
1/1/1939.The Board will note that this title expired in 1988.
40
(Note: this was misinformation because this lease
was for Kiwala Tea Estates and when the years expired it
reverted back to ULC). The Uganda Land Commission
however, had a building on the plot accommodating the NRM
Secretariat staff.(Note : These were NRM Secretariat staff
belonging to Presidents Office before the coming into force
of the 1995 Constitution not Movement Secretariat)
After various interventions that also included court
action under H.C.C.S 1589 of 2000 Park Royal Vs
Attorney General, the matter was finally settled by
decree of High Court in a Consent Judgement.
Park Royal had since fulfilled the conditions of the Consent
Judgement and presented evidence of settlement of the
agreed and verified sum for developments by the NRM
Secretariat on the suit land.
As part of the settlement of the matter the Chief Registrar of
titles was directed to finalize the registration and issuance of
the lease and title deed to Park Royal Ltd. The Board noted
that the lease period granted i.e. 5 years from 1/6/96
expired in 2001. This meant that there was no longer any
valid period to register.
Ms Park Royal through the Lawyers Sebalu and Lule have
now applied for lease renewal in order to have the lease
registered.
The Land Officer recommended that since the granted period
of lease not registered and therefore rendered invalid, the
applicants be considered for a fresh lease with exemption of
payments of premium. Ground rent would be revised
upwards upon the Valuers advice.
The Board considered the application and upon the technical
officers advice it was resolved:
That pursuant to High Court Decree (H.C.C.S) 1589 of 2004
lease grant to Ms Park Royal Limited of P.O Box 4252
Kampala in respect of Plot No 61 Yusuf Lule Road be
revalidated on nil premium but ground rent be revised
upwards.
The Chairman Kampala District Land Board (KDLB), Engineer
Y. B. K. Mpagi, Mr. Kabuye then Ag. Secretary KDLB and Ms.
Bagonza Jane then Lands Officer and currently Ag. Secretary
Kampala District Land Board said that on receipt of the Consent
41
Judgement, the Board believed that the matter had been
resolved. They further said that they were not aware that the
Consent Judgement was being challenged in court.
6.2.49 On 16th September 2004 Mr. Kabuye, the Secretary, Kampala
District Land Board wrote to Park Royal Ltd communicating the
revalidation of the offer of lease pursuant to High court Decree
(HCCS 1589 of 2004). The offer letter was copied to the
Assistant Commissioner Land Inspectorate and required Park
Royal to contact the same office to process the lease. (See
Appendix XXI).
6.2.50 On 15th October 2004 the Commissioner Land Inspectorate, Mrs.
Mulinde Mukasa Kintu processed and approved the lease
documents and forwarded them to the Commissioner Land
Registration for registration. (See Appendix XXII).
6.2.51 The Assistant Commissioner, Land Inspectorate, Mrs. Mulinde
Mukasa Kintu who authorized the preparation of the lease
documents stated that she was not aware of the IGG report, but
she received a letter dated 16th September 2004 Ref.
KDLB/ICC/2004 from the Secretary Kampala District Land Board
requesting her to prepare the lease documents. Attached to
the letter was a court order dated 16th July, 2004 and a decree
(Consent Judgement). She said that with the above documents
she had no reason to doubt the transaction. Thus, she
processed the file and forwarded the same to the
Commissioner Land Registration to prepare the lease
documents. Ms Mulinde said she was not aware of the
appeal going on in court.
42
6.2.52 On 20th October 2004 Park Royal Ltd was registered and issued
a Certificate of Title on Plot 61 Kitante Road. By the time of
registering Park Royal Ltd there was a caveat on the title lodged
by the Chairman of the Uganda Land Commission, Mr. Mayanja
Nkangi as already mentioned in this report. The caveat was
already registered on 22nd July 2004 under instrument 345026
and the land was registered under Park Royal Ltd without notice
to the caveator contrary to section 140 (1) and 141 of the
Registration of Titles Act. Section 140 (1) requires that, “upon
the receipt of caveat the Registrar shall notify the receipt to the
person against whose application to be registered as proprietor
or, as the case may be, to the proprietor against whose title to
deal with the estate or interest the caveat has been lodged, and
that applicant or proprietor or any person claiming under any
transfer or other instrument signed by the proprietor may, if he
or she thinks fit, summon the caveator to attend before the
court to show cause why the caveat should not be removed,
and the court may, upon proof that the caveator has been
summoned, make such order in the premises either ex parte or
otherwise, and as to cost as it seems fit.”
Section 141 provides for no entry to be made in Register Book
while the caveat continues in force, It states, “So long as any
caveat remains in force prohibiting any registration or dealing,
the registrar shall not, except in accordance with some provision
of the caveat, or with the consent in writing of the caveator,
enter in the Register Book any change in the proprietorship of
or any transfer or other instrument purporting to transfer or
43
otherwise deal with or affect the estate or interest in
respect to which that caveat is lodged.”
6.2.53 According to the interdicted Commissioner of Land Registration,
Mr. Jonathan Tibasaasa, it was a mistake to register a caveat
lodged under section 148 of the Registration of Titles Act on an
expired land title. Note that the land title was deemed to have
expired in 1988 basing on the lease to Kiwala Tea Estate, which
was a misconception. Tibasaasa stated that a caveat to prevent
issuing a leasehold title or renewing a lease should have been
lodged under section 22 of the Registration of Titles Act. He
added that the Registrar who registered the caveat would
have rejected it (caveat) and notified the caveator accordingly.
Mr. Tibasaasa further stated that the right procedure before
registering a new title is for the Registrar to check the history of
the land/plot to be registered. In this particular case if the
Registrar checked the history he should have noticed that there
was a caveat. The caveator should have been notified before
the new title is registered.
6.2.54 The Acting Commissioner Land Registration, Mr. Karibwende
Edward stated that the caveat was erroneously registered
because the title on which it was registered had expired in
1988, yet the caveat was registered in 2004. He said that
however the caveat should have put the Registrar on notice that
the Uganda Land Commission was still interested in the land.
44
6.2.55 Mr. Robert Nyombi, the Registrar who registered both the
caveat lodged by Uganda Land Commission and the new title
issued to Park Royal stated as follows, that:
• The registration of the caveat was erroneous because he
entered it on an expired folio/register. He said this was
an over sight on his part.
• He did not notice that the folio on which he was
registering the caveat was expired.
• If he had noticed that the title on LRV 180 Folio 3 had a
caveat he would have cancelled the entry, having been
entered in error and then rejected the caveat. He should
have written and informed the caveator before registering
the new title. That this was not done because it never
came to his notice that there was a caveat.
• He did not check the historical records regarding the plot
before registering Park Royal’s lease because there was
nothing to raise his suspicion.
• During the time he registered the new title in the names
of Park Royal Ltd, there was a lot of pressure from work
because he was the only Registrar other than the
Commissioner, Mr. Tibisaasa in the entire department.
That this could have been the cause of the over sight.
6.2.56 Observations on the process of revalidation and
registration of lease to Park Royal Ltd.
6.2.57 It is observed that the Kampala District Land Board’s decision to
revalidate the lease offer to Park Royal was based on the
Consent Judgement as per Board minute KDLB 5/14/2004.
45
However, the Consent Judgement is illegal and a fraud as
already indicated in this report besides the Consent Judgement
was and is still a subject of a court case. The case has not yet
been resolved. Despite the fact that Mr. Virani and Sebalu &
Lule Advocates (Park Royal Lawyers) were aware that the
matter was in court, paragraph 4 of Park Royal’s letter
(authored by Sebalu & Lule Advocates on Park Royal’s behalf)
dated 6th May 2004 to Kampala District Land Board states that;
“the case HCCS 1589 of 2000 was heard on evidence and
finally parties resolved the matter and a decree (Consent
Judgement) spelling out the terms was issued by the high court.
Enclosed is a copy of the decree.”
It is observed that this was an intentional misrepresentation
of facts by Park Royal and its Lawyers (Sebalu & Lule
Advocates and Legal Consultants since the consent
Judgement was being challenged by ULC and there was no
execution deed between Park Royal and Government.
6.2.58 Similarly, paragraph 6 of the same letter states that, “the decree
already has been availed to the Chief Registrar of Titles and
Uganda Land Commission for purposes of registering the lease
and issuance of the title.”
However, the Uganda land Commission was not party to the
Consent Judgement. The Uganda Land Commission was
challenging the same, and was not in agreement that a lease be
processed. Uganda Land Commission had even lodged a caveat
on the title. By including the Uganda Land Commission as an
agreeing party was also intentional misrepresentation of facts
by Park Royal Ltd represented by Sebalu & Lule Advocates &
Legal Consultants to the Board with clear intentions of fraud.
46
6.2.59 It is observed that the decision to revalidate Park Royal’s lease
by Kampala District Land Board was illegal due to the following,
• As Minute KDLB 5/7/2004 of September 15,2004 states the
Board was aware and had been long advised by the
Commissioner Land Registration that the land in question
belong to Uganda Land Commission. The most reasonable
action the Board should have taken was to refer the
application to Uganda Land Commission for consideration.
KCC could not give what they did not have.
• There was no lease to revalidate, the lease allocation to Park
Royal KCC offered in 1995 having been cancelled on
Inspectorate of Government’s recommendation after
establishing that the land was illegally allocated to Park Royal
Ltd.
• Even if the lease had not been cancelled the lease period of
5 years had expired in 2001 thus there was no valid lease
which the Board could revalidate.
The explanation that the above issues had been resolved in
a Consent Judgement explains how the fraudulent acquisition
of the Consent Judgement by Park Royal represented by
Sebalu & Lule Advocates & Legal Consultants was part of the
grand plan to grab government property.
6.2.60 Park Royal represented by Sebalu & Lule Advocates & Legal
Consultants went ahead to execute the terms of the agreement
without the execution deed and on 15th June 2004 paid
Shs.6,000,000 to NRM Secretariat vide cheque No. 103790 of
Barclays Bank dated 15th June 2004 payable to the
47
Commissioner, Treasury Officer of Accounts. The cheque was
endorsed by the Managing Director of Property Services Ltd.
Note that property Services Ltd is the company of Pradip Karia
– a KCC official who has been at the centre of conflict of
interest as established by the earlier and current investigations
by the Inspectorate of Government.
6.2.61 It was illegal and void to register a second certificate of title on
the same plot when the caveat was still in force. There was no
notice of caveat given by the Registrar of titles as required
under section 140 of the Registration of Titles Act. Similarly
Section 141 of the Registration of Titles Act requires that no
entry shall be made in Register Book while the caveat continues
in force, therefore the registration of a second title was illegal
because the caveat was still in force. Mr Nyombi, the Registrar
of titles who registered both the caveat and the second title was
part of the racket to defraud government of Uganda of its land
and Property therein. The argument that the title was expired
cannot hold as earlier indicated this was Crown land which was
never leased to KCC on a 99 year lease nor granted as freehold.
It is the Lease to Kiwala estate which had been surrendered to
ULC which expired in 1998 not ULC ownership. The expiry of
lease of Kiwala Tea estates was of no consequence to the
proprietorship of ULC. If the title had expired, why was the
caveat registered and entered on an expired title in July 2004.
6.2.62 Mr. Tibisaasa’s action of distancing himself from the Uganda
Land Commission in protecting government property and
interest is suspect. Mr. Tibisaasa knew and had confirmed to
the Inspectorate of Government in his letter dated
48
27/10/1997(See Appendix III) that the stakeholders in the
land in question were Uganda Land Commission and
department of Land Administration. Mr. Tibisaasa certainly knew
that the land in question was government of Uganda land. His
explanation that he did not want to embarrass the Attorney
General at the expense of government interests in the land is
not convincing because its this interest in the land by
Government which the Attorney General and him are supposed
to protect. He had wrongly directed his allegiance unless if he
was saying that the Attorney General had personal interest as
opposed to Government interest. The request from the
Chairman, Uganda Land Commission was not even necessary
for Mr. Tibisaasa, as the Registrar of Titles, in order to protect
government property and interest against theft and fraud, as
was the case. Section 170 (a) of the Registration of Titles Act
mandates a Registrar of Titles, among other duties, to protect
government property by lodging caveats on behalf of
Government. It states as follows,
“ The registrar may exercise and shall perform the following
powers and duties (a) to lodge a caveat on behalf of
government or on behalf of a person who is under disability
of infancy, coverture, lunacy, unsoundness of mind or
absence from Uganda, to prohibit transfer or dealing with
any land belonging or supposed to belong to any such
person, and also to prohibit the dealing with any land in any
case in which it appears that an error has been made by
misdescription of the land or otherwise in any register of
certificate of title or in any instrument, or for the prevention
of any fraud or improper dealing.”
Failure by Mr. Tibisasa as the Registrar of Titles to protect
government property against the fraud as indicated above is
a manifestation that he abated the fraud.
49
6.2.63 Even though Mr. Tibasasa argues that the person who reported
to him the grabbing of government property was allegedly a
stranger, (the stranger Irene Kalikwani was one of the
occupants and she was bonafide occupant as staff of Presidents
Office in NRM Secretariat since 1989 who brought the complaint
to IG in 1996). Mr. Tibasaasa should have checked with the
Uganda Land Commission to confirm the fact. It is arrogance,
and suspicious conduct which perpetuates corruption, on the
part of Mr. Tibasaasa to argue that informers of crime should
always be familiar to him in order to take action. And in any
case was the Chairman of ULC also a stranger? Insn’t this
evidence enough to show that Mr Tibisaasa was deliberately
neglecting duty of which he should be held responsible for
reasons best known to himself and Park Royal Ltd.
6.3 Whether there was financial loss or impropriety caused
to government as a consequence of the fraudulent sale
of Plot 61, Yusuf Lule Road
6.3.1 An inspection of the disputed plot confirmed that there is a big
residential house on the Plot. The house has 3 bedrooms,
sitting room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and a garage. It has a
guest wing with two bedrooms, sitting room, kitchen, toilet and
bathroom. The house also has servant quarters with one room,
kitchen, bathroom, store and a toilet. The house is enclosed in
a chain link fence with a metallic gate and a spacious
compound. The main house is roofed with tiles and iron sheets
for the servant’s quarters. Location is in prime area, with
electricity and running water. The Certificate of Title shows the
50
plot measures 0.109 hectares. The house is in excellent
condition See picture below;
Picture 1: Front view (Upper side) of the Government house on Plot 61 Kitante (Yusuf Lule) Road
Picture 2: Side view (upper side) of the Government house on Plot 61 Kitante (Yusuf Rule) Road
51
Picture 3: Side view of the Government house on Plot 61 Kitante (Yusuf Lule) Road including
garage & attached servant’s quarters (rear view)
6.3.2 In 1995 when Kampala City Council stealthily (the land had never
been given by ULC to KCC) offered a Lease to Park Royal Ltd the
terms included inter alia: -
- Premium – Shs.73,000,000/=
- Ground rent – Shs. 7,300,000/=
- Period of lease 5 years extendable to 65 years.
On the 28th July 1995, the then Ag. Town Clerk, Mr. Serugendo
wrote to Park Royal Ltd informing them of the above terms.
(See Appendix XXIII).
However, the KCC Planning and Development Committee chaired by
Mr. Pradip Karia (who was the Chairperson of Finance Committee
KCC) dubiously reduced the premium from shs 73,000,000/= to shs
25,000,000/= as established by the earlier IGG report (1997). (See
Appendix XXIV).
52
6.3.3 Minute FC 1/7/96 of the Finance and Planning Committee (See
Appendix XXV) indicate the original premium for Plot 61
Kitante Road of shs.35,000,000/= and revalued premium of
shs.25,000,000/=, there is however no evidence to show how
the original premium was reduced from shs.73,000,000/=,
which was approved and communicated to Park Royal, to shs
35,000,000/=.
6.3.4 The IG Report (1997) revealed as follows:
Under LMC 7/150/95, M/S Park Royal Limited was offered a
lease for Plot 61 Kitante Road under the following terms;
(i) Premium Shs.73 million
(ii) Ground rent Shs.7.3 million p.a.
(iii) Lease – 5 years extendable to 65 years.
Under Minute FC 1/7/96 the Committee is said to have revised
the premium from Shs.35,000,000/= to Shs.25,000,000/= on
the basis of valuation report presented by the Principal Staff
Surveyor. It should be noted that there is no single record
showing how the premium reduced from 73 million to
Shs.35,000,000/= so as to be revalued to
Shs.25,000,000/= and the said Valuer’s report is not in
existence. Even after several reminders to Mr. Kakooko, the
Principal Valuer, nothing was forth coming. Not even the draft
could be traced. It should also be noted that there is no record
of appeal for revision of premium and rent from Park Royal
Limited.
The plausible conclusion is that the Finance Committee itself
had members who were interested in the affairs of the plot
hence breaking the normal procedures of appealing for revision
by having a written appeal from the appellants plus a valuation
report.
Even the value of Shs.35 million presented to the Committee as
the original premium is misleading since the original premium
was Shs.73 million. The Finance Committee is therefore solely
responsible for the manipulation of the plot value. Evidence has
been adduced by the NRM Secretariat that Shs.24,000,000/=
53
had been spent on the renovation vide; a final certificate of
repair and renovation of houses on plot 61 and 63 Kitante Road
dated 8/3/89 certified by the Commissioner for Buildings in the
Ministry of Lands.
It is therefore our considered opinion that this property was
intentionally and dubiously under valued (if at all valued) hence
revised to serve the interest of some of the members of
Finance Committee and KCC executives.
The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Pradip Karia who
is the Director of Property Services Limited which was
responsible for securing the plot for Park Royal Limited has
conflict of interests in this matter which was dubiously handled.
Although he claimed that he had no pecuniary interest in the
matter and had no knowledge about the plot until the matter
came to the Finance Committee, there is evidence that his
company had written to the Minister of Lands in 1995
expressing interest in the same plot. He should therefore have
disclosed his interest before participating in the proceedings.
6.3.5 In a letter dated 14th September 1995 Ref. C (c) 1370 from the
then Senior Lands Officer Ms. Mulendwe to the Commissioner, Land
Administration, Mulendwe warns that it was unfair to give away a
government house without adequate compensation. The letter
stated in part that “Is it really fair that the house should silently go
back to Council with a premium of 73,000,000 and nothing at all
going to government? What about government’s equitable
interest? Park Royal Ltd thinks I am unduly frustrating them but I
feel uncomfortable with this offer”. (See Appendix XXVI).
6.3.6 On the 12th June 1996, a lease offer was made to Park Royal
Limited on a dubiously reduced premium of Shs.25,000,000 and
ground rent of Shs.770,000/= per annum, this not withstanding
the fact that KCC was allocating something which did not belong
to it.
54
6.3.7 Park Royal paid the premium as follows:
• On 17/8/1995 paid Shs. 5, 000,000/= on receipt No. 1325.
• On 5/9/1996 paid Shs. 10, 000,000/= on receipt No. 2101.
• On 5/9/1996 paid Shs. 10, 000,000/= on receipt No. 2101.
• On 5/12/1996 paid Shs. 10, 000,000/= through swamping,
against rent owed by Council on property on plot 84 William Street
which accommodates KCC – Central Division offices, on receipt No.
004079.
6.3.8 However, on 7th October 1996, the Secretary to the Inspectorate of
Government in a letter to the Permanent Secretary, Lands with copies
to Town Clerk KCC, and Park Royal Ltd, staying any further dealings
with plot 61 Kitante Road which mean that the last payment of
Shs.10,000,000/= made on 5th December, 1996 was done against the
IGG’s orders.
6.3.9 In July 1997 the IG issued a report recommending that the lease
offer to Park Royal Ltd be cancelled and all the money paid to
KCC as premium be refunded to Park Royal. It was established that
KCC did not make refund to Park Royal as had been recommended
by IG. Mr. Kabuye Ahmad, Secretary to Kampala District Land Board
stated that when Park Royal Ltd took the matter to court KCC could
not implement the recommendation because the matter became
contentious.
6.3.10 Despite the fact that the premium and ground rent of shs
25,000,000/= and 770,000/= respectively were dubiously offered to
Park Royal in 1995 by the KCC's Finance and Planning Committee
to which Mr. Pradip Karia was Chairman, again in 2004 KDLB
55
offered the lease to Park Royal on the same terms. KDLB also
approved that since Park Royal had already paid 25,000,000/= in
1996 it should pay nil premium but ground rent of shs 770,000/=p.a
be revised upwards. However, ground rent was also not revised
and on 16/9/2004 the Secretary Kampala District Land Board Mr.
Kabuye communicated the offer to Park Royal Ltd at the same terms
as those of 1995. See Appendix XXI.
6.3.11 Park Royal paid the ground rent of Shs.1,540,000/= retrospectively
(in arrears) against a demand note of Shs.4,499,000/= dated
10/6/2006 (See Appendix XXVII) as follows;
Date paid Receipt No Amount (shs)
17/9/2004 0105944 770,000/=
24/9/2004 0106165 770,000/=
Total 1,540,000/=
It should be noted that ULC had been paying ground rent and
property rates since 1997 including the period Park Royal
purported to pay for. (See Appendix XXVIII).
A review of the KCC revenue collection accounts confirmed that
payment from ULC and Park Royal were all receipted and posted
into three accounts. One Account No. 1/755 in respect of
ground rent is in the names of Uganda Land Commission and
Shs.885,000/= was paid by ULC into this account since 2001.
The second account of No. 1/2237 of ground rent is in the
names of Park Royal Ltd. Shs.1,540,000/= was paid into this
56
account by Park Royal Ltd as already indicated above. The third
account Ref. Zone 2 serial No. 815 of property rates is in the
names of Park Royal Ltd though the payments in the account
were made by ULC according to the receipts retrieved.
Shs.969,778/= had been paid into this account since 2001.
6.3.12 The Secretary KDLB Mr. Kabuye had no explanation for maintaining
the same terms of premium of Shs.25 million and ground rent of
Shs.770,000/=. He insisted that the Board went by the terms and
conditions of the Consent Judgement. It should however be noted
that this was a matter dragged to court when it was already before
IG so there is no way the Consent Judgement orders could be
invoked in it. It has to be noted also that this was consent
Judgement made on instructions of Ms Margret Oguli Oumo when
she was Director Legal Affairs- Movement Secretariat.
6.3.13 The Ag Principal Valuer Mr. Mungati stated that he was not
consulted to revalue ground rent as had been recommended by the
Board. It has been established that the request to revalue ground
rent was routed directly to Mr. Gilbert Kermundu, Assistant Valuer
by the Secretary KDLB. See Appendix XIX.
6.3.14 According to Mr. Kermundu the instructions to revise ground rent
were forwarded to him with a lease offer which indicated the terms
of offer and among the terms was ground rent of Shs.770,000/=.
He said he construed the whole process as regularization, thus he
did not need to carry out a revaluation.
6.3.15 Further more, on 15/6/2004 Park Royal Ltd paid shs 6,000,000/= to the
Treasury Officer of Accounts purportedly being compensation for repairs
57
and maintenance carried out by the Movement Secretariat. According to
Oguli’s report to the National Political Commissar of 1st March, 2004, Shs.
6,000,000/= was meant for compensation for maintenance repairs the
Secretariat made on the house on plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road.
6.3.16 Ms. Oguli stated in the said report that the Shs.6,000,000/= was arrived
at after taking into account of the depreciation. However, as earlier
established in the IG report (1997), the Movement Secretariat had spent
Shs.24,000,000/= on renovation of the houses on Plot 61 and 63 Yusuf
Lule Road (Kitante Road) vide final certificate dated 8/3/89 (See
Appendix XXIX).
Mrs. Oguli Oumo Stated that the department (Movement
Secretariat not NRM Secretariat) had a meeting and agreed that
the Secretariat had no interest in the house except for the money
they spent to renovate when it had been allocated to them and to
see that their staff had where to go when they leave the house.
They all agreed to the amount which was paid to the Secretariat
for the renovations based on the records from accounts section.
She stated that money was also paid to the staff occupying the
premises to enable them relocate. That the department arrived at
that decision to save the government money it would have paid to
defend a suit, which they were likely to lose. However, the decision
by the Movement Secretariat was arrived at on wrong facts and
deliberately intended to deprive Government of its land because Ms
Oguli knew that the Movement Secretariat had no equitable or
legal interest in the property. Besides no minutes of the said
departmental meeting were availed to the IG to confirm the above
assertions by Mrs Oguli Oumo.
58
6.3.17 According to Ms Irene Kalikwani the current occupant of the
house, the occupants kept on maintaining the house to keep it
in good condition at their expense. Ms Irene Kalikwani became a
bonafide occupant of this house when she was staff of the NRM
secretariat in 1988-89 which was under Presidents Office then.
She was staff of President’s office not Movement Secretariat.
She had never worked with Ms Oguli Oumo in the Movement
Secretariat. She was one of those occupants who brought the
complaint about KCC and Pradip Karia’s intention
6.3.18 An Inspection of the house confirmed that the house is well
maintained. It is therefore not clear the depreciation rate Ms
Oguli used to determine the value of Shs.6,000,000/= as
compensation due to government.
6.3.19 Captain Awich Pollar agreed that he recommended the
Shs.6,000,000/= calculated basing on the amount of money the
Movement Secretariat used to renovate the house since it was
allocated to the Secretariat. As to whether he was a qualified
valuer to value a government house he stated that he was
merely giving his opinion as provided by the law and shading
light on the issue of depreciation.
6.3.20 Observations on whether there was financial loss or
impropriety caused to Government as a consequence of the
fraudulent sale of plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
6.3.21 The Movement Secretariat agreed to a ridiculous Shs.6,000,000/=
as value to compensate government. However a government
valuer was not involved in determining the amount of
59
compensation. In a layman’s estimation the value of the property
comprised in Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road is not less than
Shs.500million/=. Even without a valuer to establish the loss, it is
clear that giving away the property in question at a meagre
Shs.6,000,000/= indicate lack of seriousness and dishonesty. Also
the comments of Ms Mulendwe in her letter dated 14/9/1995.
(See Appendix XXVI) are pertinent if one considers the property
being taken away without going into the issue of who actually was
the proprietor. From the evidence established the property
belonged to ULC because the lease to Kiwala Tea Estate was on
crown land. So the issue of compensation could not arise because
ULC was the owner and KCC had no locus standi. When Kiwala Tea
estates surrendered the remaining lease to ULC and the remaining
years expired the property reverted back to ULC. There is no way it
could just be property of KCC by mere expiry of the remaining
lease.
6.3.22 It is observed that Mr. Pradip Karia who was then LCV Councilor
and Chairman KCC Finance Committee not only did he influence
the illegal allocation of the plot to Park Royal but also influenced
the dubious reduction of premium of Shs.73,000,000/= to
Shs.35,000,000 and to a final premium of Shs.25,000,000/=. Even
though the property did not belong to KCC Mr. Pradip intended to
cause financial loss to Council of Shs.48,000,000m/= (73m –
35m).Similarly ground rent was dubiously reduced from
Shs.7,300,000/= to Shs.770,000/= intentionally to cause a loss of
Shs.6,530,000/= resulting into a total loss of Shs. 54,530,000/=.
60
6.3.23 Mr. Pradip Karia was in breach of the Leadership Code Act and the
Local Government Act when he failed to disclose his interest in Plot 61
Yusuf Lule and chaired the meeting that dubiously reduced rent and
premium as indicated above. Paragraph 4 of the Local Government
Councils Regulations states that,
“If any member of the district, sub county or Urban Council
or of any committee, board or commission of a council
(a) has any pecuniary interest in a proposed contract or any
other matter; and
(b) is present at any meeting of that council, board,
commission or committee at which that contract or other
matter is the subject of consideration,
He or she shall at that meeting disclose that interest and
shall not take part in any consideration or discussion or vote
on any question relating to that contract or that matter,
and that person shall withdraw from that meeting.”
Mr. Pradip Karia never declared his interest to the Finance and
Planning Committee nor withdrew from the meeting when the
reduction of premium for Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road was
discussed, in fact he chaired the meeting in violation of the
Local Government Act.
6.4 Whether there was abuse of office by government
officials involved
The actions/roles of government officials involved in the sale of
Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road were reviewed to establish whether
they abused their offices and below are the findings;
6.4.1 Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo
Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo was then Director of Legal Affairs at
the Movement Secretariat and is currently a High Court Judge.
61
Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo as the Director of Legal Affairs
advised the Movement Secretariat to settle the matter out of
court when the lease to Park Royal Ltd was already cancelled by
the Registrar of Titles. The cancellation followed the IG’s report
of 1997 which had recommended that the lease to Park Royal
Ltd be cancelled. See Ms. Oguli’s report to the National
Political Commissar on the matter in Appendix X.
Park Royal Ltd was not the lawful lessee of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule
Road, however, the fact was misrepresented by Mrs. Oguli in
her report to the NPC and her letter to the Attorney General
with instructions to settle the matter out of court in which she
states that Park Royal was the lawful lessee of the Plot in
question. See Appendix XIII
Mrs. Oguli’s advice misled the Movement Secretariat to meddle
into the matters of plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road when the Movement
Secretariat had no interest whether equitable or legal in the
Property. Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo, then Director Legal
Affairs of the Movement Secretariat copied the same letter
advising settlement of the case to Park Royal (Plaintiff) and
Sebalu and Lule Co. Advocates (Counsel for Park Royal)
abetting the illegal actions and interests of Park Royal Ltd
in the fraudulent transfer.
Mrs. Oguli personally got involved in the eviction of the
occupants after the Consent Judgment which action was
uncalled for. See several letters of eviction in Appendix XXX
The Movement Secretariat is established under an Act of
Parliament as on organ of the Movement it is not under
62
President’s Office. Some occupants of the plot were employees
of President’s Office so the Movement Secretariat had
nothing at all to meddle into it. Their meddling was therefore
for self gain to deprive government of its land.
Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo was asked to explain her
involvement in the sale of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule to which she
responded that she does not know the location of the premises,
as she has never been interested in old dilapidated Indian
houses. That she never represented Mr. Karia or Park Royal.
She stated that all she knows is that the house was allocated to
the Secretariat before she joined the NRM Secretariat and was
occupied by staff of the secretariat. She did not append any
document to support her statement. And knowing where the
dilapidated Indian houses were was not an issue relevant to
what the IG asked her. Besides the Movement Secretariat did
not succeed the NRM at least it does not say so in the
Movement Act.
She said that in 2003, she received court documents where Park
Royal who claimed to be owners was suing the Attorney General
because secretarial staff were living there. The Attorney
General did not have the details and asked her office to provide
more information since the Judge had already advised the
parties to settle the matter, thus her letter of 23/04/2003.
She further added that when the matter came to her office she
sent an officer called Capt. Awich to land office and KCC to
make a search and he reported to her that KCC had already
allocated the land to Park Royal. That she convened a meeting
63
and invited an officer from Attorney General’s office and the
Lawyers of Park Royal to see how to handle the pending suit.
That as the Director in charge of Legal Affairs, her role was to
advise the organs of the movement on legal matters concerning
the movement and to laise with Counsel from outside if
necessary Ms. Oguli said that the decision to settle the matter
out of court was arrived at to save the government money it
would have paid to defend a suit which they were likely to lose.
From the above it is clear that Ms. Oguli Oumo who was the
Director Legal Affairs and had the duty of advising the
Department misled the department including the NPC that
Government was going to lose the case in court and without
involving or consulting the Uganda Land Commission she
instructed the Attorney General to enter into the Consent
Judgement. She did this well knowing that the Movement
Secretariat had no interest in the plot (see Appendix XIII).
Besides the National Political Commissar was not aware of the
transaction though Mrs Oguli Oumo purpoted to write a report
to the NPC dated 1/3/2004.
6.4.2 Mr. Serwanga Sam
The Attorney General was represented in the High Court Civil
Suit No.1589 of 2000, Park Royal Vs Attorney General, by Mr.
Sam Serwanga, Senior State Attorney. Mr. Sam Serwanga
signed the consent Agreement/Judgment on behalf of the
Attorney General.
64
6.4.2.1 Mr. Sam Serwanga was talked to and stated that Park Royal
sued the Attorney General for the actions of the Movement
Secretariat and IGG who made it impossible for Park Royal Ltd
to take possession of Plot 61 Kitante Road. That the Attorney
General filed a defence pleading that the IGG’s actions stopping
the intended eviction were based on a complaint and were
lawful. When the suit came up for hearing, before Justice
Gideon Tinyinondi, Mr. Serwanga informed court that he would
be summoning witnesses from the IGG’s office, Land office and
Movement Secretariat. The plaintiff called one witness Mr. Minix
Karia and closed his case. Mr. Serwanga stated that he
contacted the office of the IGG, Movement Secretariat and Land
office to avail witnesses who would testify for the Attorney
General in the suit, but before this could be done, the
Movement Secretariat came in.
Hon. Crispus Kiyonga called and left a message through Captain
Pollar Awich, the then Personal Assistant to the National Political
Commissar, that Hon Kiyonga wanted to meet him (Serwanga)
over the case in issue.
6.4.2.2 Mr. Serwanga further stated that he met Hon. Kiyonga whose
position was that the suit should be settled out of court because
Park Royal, were investors and had complained to the President
that their investment was being frustrated (this could not be true
because the defrauding was hatched evidently by Pradip Karia).
That the NPC told Serwanga to liaise with the Director, Legal
Affairs, Mrs. Margaret C. Oguli Oumo, however Dr Kiyonga
confirmed to this office that he was not aware of the matter. Mr
Serwanga said that the Director, Legal Affairs, Movement
65
Secretariat summoned him for a meeting on 19th April 2004 which
Serwanga did not attend because he was away in Ethiopia for
another case.
Mr. Serwanga said that the state’s defence was frustrated by the
letter Mrs. Margaret Oguli wrote to Attorney General advising
settlement which was also copied to the plaintiff - Park Royal Ltd.
As stated earlier she had no right whatsoever to advise settlement
when it was ULC responsible.
6.4.2.3 Mr. Serwanga’s explanation is however, lacking in that as a
Senior State Attorney, he should have known that Government
land is controlled and managed by the Uganda Land
Commission. As a person employed to advise Government, he
should have advised that the Uganda Land Commission be
informed of what was going on even before the commencement
of the court proceedings. If he was serious he should have
studied the lands file for Plot 61 in which case he would have
known that the Movement Secretariat had no interest in the
property. The IG notes that Mr Serwanga Sam’s actions were
deliberate and show that there was total connivance between
him, Ms Oguli Ouma and Pradip Karia to defraud Government of
Uganda of the Land and property. Evidence is available to the
effect that even the State Attorney who was representing
Attorney General had no instructions from Attorney General
(see Mr Serwanga Sam’s Affidavit in Appendix XXXV)
6.4.2.4 Information available now indicates that Mr. Serwanga is no
longer an employee of Government. He has resigned from the
Attorney Generals Office and joined private practice. He should
66
be made accountable for abuse of authority or of public office
according to section 83 of the Penal Code.
6.4.3 Captain Pollar Awich
Captain Awich was then working with the Movement Secretariat
as a Political Assistant to the National Political Commissar. He is
currently on a foreign assignment as a UN expert on Human
Rights.
Captain Awich investigated the matters concerning Plot 61
Kitante Road and made a legal opinion to the Director Legal
Affairs. However his investigation and legal opinion left a lot to
be desired. He established that the land title for Plot 61 Yusuf
Lule Road was registered in the names of the Uganda Land
Commission but did not advise that the matter was not within
the Secretariat’s jurisdiction. He failed to state that Mr. Virani
and Mr. Pradip Karia of Park Royal were fraudsters who were
masquerading as lawful lessees of Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road
most likely for vested interests.
Captain Awich’s purported legal opinion contains a lot of
deliberate legal misinterpretations to the extent that he
questions the powers of IGG to intervene in cases of conflict
of interest and abuse of office. At the time he did this, already
the Leadership Code Statute 1992 was in existence and
Leadership Code Act 2002. He also stated that he read the IG
report (1997) but the only issue he picked out of the
report was under valuation of the Plot and not cancellation
67
of the lease. This was being shallow on his part since there
were a number of issues.
Captain Pollar Awich was also very instrumental in the eviction
of the occupants. One occupant Ms Irene Kalikwani stated that
on one occasion Captain Awich went to the house and
threatened the occupants that the house was going to be
demolished. Captain Awich denied this and stated that he has
been to the site (Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road) only twice. The first
time is when he was carrying out the research/investigation as
already indicated in this report. The second was after the
exchange of letters between Ms Oguli Oumo and Ms Kalikwani
Irene on instructions from Ms Oguli to find out whether it was
true Kalikwani had brought UPDF soldiers at the house as
alleged by the Asians and he found the soldiers there. This did
not tally with what Ms Oguli stated in her response to IG. If she
was not interested in dilapidated Indian houses then why did
she send Awich there to find out if UPDF men were there. These
two people (Awich and Oguli) worked on the same mission. It
shows that Ms Oguli was telling a lie.
According to Ms Irene Kalikwani she brought the armed
personnel on request to her employers and in response to the
threats from Captain Awich and a group of Park Royal staff who
came to the site and threatened the occupants with forceful
demolition of the house when the matter was still in court.
The actions of Captain Pollar Awich indicated that he was an
accomplice though as he put it in his statement that his
68
report was not binding. The Director Legal Affairs Ms. Oguli had
the option to disagree with his legal opinion.
6.4.4 Mr. Robert Nyombi – Registrar of Titles
Mr. Nyombi has been Registrar of Titles since 1993. He is currently
on interdiction on allegations of mismanagement and public outcry
due to illegal transactions in the Registry of Lands.
Mr. Nyombi is the Registrar who registered both the caveat lodged
by the Uganda Land Commission on the certificate of title under
LRV 180 Folio 3 and issued a new certificate of title to Park
Royal.
Mr. Nyombi stated that registration of the Caveat was erroneous
because he entered it on an expired folio/Register. He says this
was due to oversight, as he did not notice that the folio on which
he was registering the caveat was expired.
Mr. Nyombi stated that he did not carry out backward
investigations to ascertain the history of the transactions on the
plot in question before registering Park Royal and issue of a new
title. Mr. Nyombi is an experienced Registrar of 13 years experience
and a senior member of the department. His actions did not
reflect his seniority. It may be said that he was negligent if not
compromised. If he had performed his duties as expected he
would not have:
1. Registered the wrong Caveat on a title which was
expired as he claims.
69
2. Before registering the new title to Park Royal Ltd he
still had an opportunity to discover the said error of
registering a caveat and accordingly notified Uganda
Land Commission.
6.4.5 Mr. Tibisaasa Jonathan
Tibisaasa is the Commissioner for Land Registration. He has
worked in the Land department since 1975, rising from a
Registrar of titles to the Commissioner Land Administration in
1995. He is currently on interdiction on allegations of
mismanagement and public outcry due to illegal transactions in
the Registry of Lands.
He informed this office that both Registration of the caveat and
issue of a new title before notifying the caveator were irregular.
He stated that he was not able to check the irregularity because
of the big gap in the structure of the department of Land
Registration. He said that the structure should have a Deputy
Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Principal Registrars,
Senior Registrars but for a very long time the posts have not
been filled. That in practice one Registrar does everything that
is required to execute a given land transaction up to the end.
He said that as a Commissioner, he cannot check all the
transactions, he only checks or intervenes when there is a
complaint.
70
This indicates that there are no checks and balances in the
system of land registration. A dishonest Registrar can therefore
perpetuate frauds without being noticed and may not be noticed
until there is a complaint. This is very risky given the sensitivity
of land transactions.
Mr. Tibisaasa wrote a letter to Park Royal Lawyers (Sebalu and
Co. Advocates) disassociating himself from ULC’s action to
challenge the Consent Judgement. The letter was the basis
upon which ULC’s application to court failed. Mr. Tibisaasa did
this despite the fact that he had been approached by ULC’s
Lawyer to swear a supportive affidavit and had promised to do
the same. His explanation that he did not want to embarrass
the Attorney General is not convincing. The Registration of titles
Act Section 170 gives powers to the Registrar of Titles to protect
government interests in land. Mr. Tibisaasa failed to protect
government interest in the property though he was aware of the
IG’s report (1997) and he had received a complaint to that
effect, though Mr. Tibisaasa said that he received a complaint
from a stranger. It defeats reason that Mr. Tibisaasa can only
take action on complaints he receives from only people who are
known to him. Even then Mr. Tibisaasa should have taken a
step further to inquire from ULC whether the complaint was
genuine.
The action of Mr. Tibisaasa leads to the conclusion that he was
part of the conspiracy to grab government land
71
6.4.6 Mr. Pradip Karia
6.4.6.1 Mr. Pradip Karia was then (1995) a LCV Councilor to Kampala
District Council and Chairman Planning and Finance Committee.
Currently he is a Councilor at the Kampala Central Division and
also Chairman, Finance Committee of Kampala Central Division.
6.4.6.2 IGG investigations of 1997 established that:
1. Property Services Ltd has 2 directors who include Mr. Nandlal
Karia and Mr. Pradip Karia who was then the Chairman of the
Finance Committee of Kampala City Council.
2. The shareholders of Park Royal are the following:
(i) Karia Minex
(ii) Virahi Aishe
(iii) Vivani Alnasir
(iv) Gadhia Mansukh
(v) Padhiar Mandu
6.4.6.3 Evidence has been obtained to show that Pradip Karia, then
Chairman of the K.C.C Finance and Planning Committee was an
interested party as shown below;
• Property Services Ltd is purportedly an agent of Park
Royal Ltd as evidenced by the letter dated 14/2/95 to the
Prime Minister requesting for the purchase of plot 61
Yusuf Lule Road by Park Royal (See Appendix XXXI),
Pradip Karia is the Managing Director of Property Services
Ltd.
• It was confirmed Pradip Karia carried out a search on the
lands file NO MP 10640 in 1994 before expressing the
72
desire to buy the plot from Government as per the above
letter. (Appendix XXXII).
• The cheque No. 103790 dated 15/06/2004 of
Shs.6,000,000 paid to the Movement Secretariat by Park
Royal as compensation for developments on the plot as
per the consent agreement was drawn from Property
Services Ltd bank Account (See Appendix XXXIII (a).
• The letters dated 18th November 2002 and 19 March 2004
from A.G Virani for Park Royal addressed to Dr Crispus
Kiyonga both bear telephone contact No 041251141.
When the IG investigator rang this Number on
19/10/2005 the call went to Property Services Offices.
There is no evidence that Pradip Karia at any one time declared
his interest to the Finance Committee which he was the
Chairperson. The above clearly shows that he influenced the
grant of lease to Park Royal Ltd and the dubious reduction of
premium and ground rent.
6.4.6.4 Pradip Karia the Director of Property Services is the Master mind
of the scheme to fraudulently obtain Government Property for
the benefit of his company. The IGG Report of 1997 established
conflict of interest on his (Pradip) part. Paragraph 5.10 of the
IG report of 1997 states as follows:
“The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Pradip Kavia
who is the Director, of Property Services Limited which was
responsible for securing the plot for Park Royal Limited has
73
conflict of interest in this matter which was dubiously
handled. Although he claimed that he had no pecuniary
interest in the matter and had no knowledge about the plot
until the matter came to Finance Committee, there was
evidence that his company had written to the Minister of
Lands in 1995 expressing interest in the same plot. He
should therefore have disclosed his interest before
participating in the proceedings.”
Although Pradip in his statement to IG dated 25/7/1997 claimed
that he had no knowledge about the plot until the matter came
to the Finance Committee as indicated in the above finding,
there is evidence that he personally carried out a search on the
file from Lands office as far back as 1994 after which Property
Services Ltd in which Pradip Karia is a Director expressed
interest in the plot in a letter dated 4/2/1995. Pradip had
carried out the search on 2/6/94. See Appendix XXXII.
6.4.6.5 Further more, it is surprising that even after the IG report
(1997) which recommended that the money Park Royal Ltd
had paid to KCC be refunded, Park Royal instead continued
to make unexplained payments to government in a bid to
regularise the illegal purchase. Such payments include the
following;
• Payment of ground rent when Park Royal has never
occupied the said property Shs.1.540,000/=.
• Payment of shs 6,000,000 to the NRM Secretariat
purportedly for repairs the Secretariat carried out on the
house.
74
• Payment to some 3 occupants of the plot 1,500,000 each,
according to one copy of memorandum of understanding
obtained (See Appendix XXXIII(b-e). Though this
payment was personal it has been included here because
it was paid to government employees and officially
sanctioned by the then Director Legal Affairs, NRM
Secretariat.
6.4.6.6 Mr. Pradip Karia and Mr. A.G. Virani were summoned two times
to appear before the IG team to explain the above allegation in
accordance with Section 25 of the Inspectorate of Government
Act (See Appendix XXXIV(a-e). They refused and or
neglected to appear claiming that the matter is prejudice as
there is a pending case in court. See Appendix XXXIV(d) a
letter from Sebalu and Lule Advocates. They also argue
that the Inspector General of Government is in conflict of
interest because Ms. Irene Kalikwani the current occupant of the
government house on Plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road is related to the
current Inspector General of Government.
6.4.6.7 However, the prejudice rule does not apply to this case
because the Inspectorate of Government handled the case
before it went to court. Section 19 of the Inspectorate of
Government Act which limits the investigations by IG if there is
any civil matter in issue which is before court at the
commencement of IG investigations. This case of plot 61 was a
subject of investigations as back as 1996 as already pointed out
in this report. Section 19 of IG Act is also inapplicable because
corruption and abuse of authority or of public office are criminal
and are provided for in Section 87 of the Penal Code Act. The
75
intention of petitioning Court by Park Royal Ltd was also
fraudulent as already indicated in this report.
6.4.6.8 The Inspectorate of Government also affirms that this case has
been handled according to the provisions of the Constitution of
Uganda (1995) and the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002
Therefore the issue of conflict of interest does not arise
whatsoever.
7.0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Uganda Land Commission is the proprietor of the property
comprised in plot 61 Kitante Road (Yusuf Lule Road). The property
never reverted to KCC even after 1988. This was Crown land,
which reverted to ULC in 1965 after it had bought the remaining
lease from Kiwala Tea Estates. (See Appendix I). In effect
Kiwala Tea Estates had surrendered the remaining lease to ULC. It
goes without saying that if it was under Statutory Lease Kiwala Tea
Estates would have definitely surrendered it to KCC. By 1969
when KCC was granted statutory control over land let on Crown
lease under the Public Lands Act, Plot 61 had already reverted to
ULC, it was not let on a Crown lease to qualify KCC as the
controlling Authority and it had never been under control of KCC.
7.2 It is evident that KCC grabbed Government land, which is
properly and legally vested in the Uganda Land Commission, in
favour of Park Royal. The IGG Report of 1997 was very clear
that there was no transparency in the allocation of the plot to
Park Royal. Paragraph 6.4 of the report states,” There are
hidden reasons and conflict of interests as here in above
76
discussed (in the report) which orchestrated the allocation of
the plot in the manner KCC did it. KCC notably, the Chairman
Finance Committee (then Pradip Karia) and all other members
ignored the laid out procedure for their own interests.”
7.3 Mr. Pradip Karia, then Chairman of the Finance Committee is the
brain behind the scheme to deprive Government of its property
in connivance with Ms Ouma Oguli as the findings clearly show. It
is evident that the widely held view that the Uganda Land
Commission was a lessee of the disputed property was an invention
by Pradip Karia who influenced other KCC officials to pave way for
Park Royal to dubiously acquire the said property illegally and
fraudulently.
7.4 The minutes of the Finance Committee which stated that the
Committee had been informed of the existence of the plot does not
state who informed the Committee, but what is obvious is that
Pradip Karia the Chairman of the Committee is the one who had
carried out a purported search on the plot in the Land Office
which, search was misrepresented because of the intention he had
to deprive Government of land.
7.5 There is no difference between Pradip Karia, Park Royal Ltd, and
Property Services Ltd. This was intentionally designed to conceal
the interests Pradip Karia has in the acquisition of the disputed
plot. Which in Inspectorate of Government’s view shows mala fide
intention on the part of Mr. Pradip, who by his position should be a
leader and a person of integrity.
77
7.6 The IGG intervention in 1997 was to prevent Mr. Pradip from the
scheme to take what does not belong to him. However Pradip/Park
Royal Ltd did not run out of fraudulent actions. Much as he was
aware that the property he was trying to grab belonged to the
Uganda Land Commission/Government, he went to court to
challenge the IGG recommendations to cancel the lease. Mr. Pradip
was aware that he would not win a clear case of grabbing
government property like this. Aware of this, Pradip changed
tactics and initiated a new scheme and colluded with government
officials, like Mr Serwanga State Attorney of Attorney General
Chambers who was personally and without instructions handling
the case and also Ms Oguli Oumo who knew that the Movement
Secretariat had no interest legal or equitablein the property and
went ahead to give instructions to Mr Sebugenyi ( Park Royal
Lawyers) to enter into a Consent Judgment and she determined
the terms of the consent without the knowledge of the Chairman
ULC and the National Political Commissar. She signed the
purported report to the National Political Commissar and signed
letters to that effect which clearly showed intent to defraud
contrary to section 345(d) and 346 of the Penal Act.Section 345(d)
“any person makes a false document who signs a document in the
name of any person without his or her authority whether such
name is or is not the same as that of the person signing”, section
346 also states “an intent to defraud is presumed to exist if it
appears that at the time when the false document was made there
was in existence a specific person, ascertained or unascertained,
capable of being defrauded by it, and this presumption is not
rebutted by proof that the offender took or intended to take
measures to prevent such person from being defrauded in fact, nor
by the fact that he or she had, or thought he or she had, a right to
78
the thing to be obtained by the false document” It is unfortunate
that the government officials also fell prey to Pradip’s fraudulent
actions. The officials who were apparent in this collusion and or
scheme to deprive Government of its land are Mr. Sam Serwanga,
Senior State Attorney in Ministry of Justice and Constitutional
Affairs. Ms. Margaret Oguli Oumo, then Director Legal –
Movement Secretariat, Mr. Tibisaasa Jonathan, the interdicted
Commissioner of Land Registration and Mr. Nyombi Robert,
interdicted Registrar of Titles.
7.7 Mrs. Margaret Oguli Oumo, then Director Legal Affair Movement
Secretariat did not handle the matter of plot 61 in a professional
manner. She failed to give correct advice to the Movement
Secretariat when she was aware that the land was not registered in
Movement Secretariat’s names. If she had done so, the Movement
Secretariat should not have been dragged into a matter in which it
(Movement Secretariat) had no interest at all. Mrs. Oguli is
therefore responsible for all the subsequent fraudulent actions
executed as a consequence of the Consent Judgment. The findings
are clear on the fact that Mrs. Oguli put aside Government interests
and served Park Royal/Pradip Karia’s interests. Her actions infer
that she was doing it for a gain. She had earlier found out that
actually the plot was not registered in Movement Secretariat name,
See Appendix XIII- then why did she go ahead and accept Ms
Park Royal Ltd and Mr. Pradip Karia-Director Property Services to
give shs 6 million purportedly for the development done by the
Movement Secretariat and yet it was not the Movement Secretariat
which carried them out but Presidents Office before Movement
Secretariat came into existence. The Movement Secretariat is one
of the organs of the Movement Political System. While NRM
79
Secretariat was a department under Presidents Office before the
coming into force of the Constitution 1995. According to evidence
available NRM Secretariat in 1996 before enactment of the
Movement Act had spent 24,000,000/= on the renovation of the
two houses on plot 61 and 63 as per Jacob Assimwe’s letter
(former Administrative Officer- NRM) dated 19/09/1996. Further
more, there is no valuation report on which Ms Oguli Oumo based
to get shs 6million. It is apparent that Ms Oguli Oumo caused
financial loss which she is liable to make good as per Article 164(2)
of the Constitution which provides that, “Any person holding a
political or public office who directs or concurs in the use of public
funds contrary to existing instructions shall be accountable for any
loss arising from that use and shall be required to make good the
loss even if he or she has ceased to hold that office.”
7.8 The Attorney General, in particular Mr. Sam Serwanga, Senior State
Attorney was wrong to accept instructions from the Movement
Secretariat (i.e. from Ms Margaret Oguli Oumo). As assumed to be
a representative of Principal Legal Advisor to government, Mr.
Serwanga knew that the Movement Secretariat had no interest in
the matter but decided to deal with it without informing ULC. Right
from the beginning of the court proceedings, Mr. Serwanga should
have contacted Uganda Land Commission as a principal witness.
Under any circumstance, the IGG report of 1997 should have
guided Mr. Serwanga on this. Mr. Serwanga also seemed to have
fallen in Mr. Pradip's trap by accepting to handle the matter
unprofessionally. His argument that Hon. Kiyonga dissuaded him
cannot be accepted. Serwanga as a lawyer who Government relies
on to defend its interests failed, as he had no reason for accepting
the Consent Judgment. It is observed that Mr Serwanga apparently
80
was also handling the case without instructions from Attorney
General or Solicitor General ( see his Affidavit in Appendix
XXXV). So it is apparent that Mr. Serwanga and Ms Oguli Oumo
were representing interests of Pradip Karia of Property Services and
Park Royal Ltd for their own selfish interests.
7.9 Nyombi Robert, the Registrar of titles is another Government
official whose role is highly implicated in the fraud. It is not
believable that given his seniority in the department, he could
make mistakes one after another in the manner he did in
registering the new title to Park Royal without a Decree in
execution. This is a clear case of gross deliberate fraud not
negligence. He also did it when he, himself had earlier effected
registration of a caveat by Uganda Land Commission. He even did
not inform ULC about lifting of the caveat thus failing to adhere to
the law.
7.10 Mr. Tibisaasa, Commissioner Land Registration failed in his duties
when he failed to prevent the fraud of registering Park Royal Ltd
as the proprietors of plot 61 Yusuf Lule Road. He also went ahead
to collude with Park Royal to frustrate the Government’s (ULC)
efforts to protect its property. This is very clear in his actions and
the response he gave as to why he did not protect Government’s
interests. This was more than neglect of duty.
81
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 It was confirmed that plot 61 belongs to Uganda Land
Commission which is a body established under the Constitution.
Article 239 mandates the Uganda Land Commission to hold and
manage any land in Uganda vested in or acquired by the
Government of Uganda.
8.2 It was concluded that the whole process of offer and registration
of the lease to Park Royal Ltd was characterised by illegalities and
frauds right from 1996 when KCC first made the lease offer to
Park Royal up to the consent judgment and subsequent registration
of the lease. One fraudulent action led to another until the end of
the process, which included not only the attempt to defraud
government of its land but also fraudulently revising the premium
from Shs.73 million to Shs.35 million and later to Shs.25 million
with intention to cause financial loss to KCC.
8.3 The lease offer to park Royal by Kampala District Land Board and
the subsequent registration by the Land Registry when there was a
caveat on the land and an appeal pending in court is null and
void as Kampala District Land Board cannot give what it does not
have and it was a fraud as there was no execution of decree both
by Mr. Pradip Karia of Park Royal and Government. KCC under the
influence of Pradip Karia who was Chairman Finance Committee-
KCC at that time and now Concillor Central Division was behind the
fraud. And he is guilty of conflict of interest right from 1995 when
the Inspectorate of Government first investigated this matter.
82
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 The Commissioner Land Registration should cancel the Certificate
of Title issued to Park Royal Ltd over Plot 61 Kitante Road under
instrument 347817 of 20/10/2004 in accordance with Section 91 of
the Land Act 1998 and Section 77 of the Registration of Titles Act
which provides that any Certificate of title procured or made by
fraud shall be void. Section 77 of the registration of titles states ,”
Any Certificate of title, entry, removal of incumbrance, or
cancellation in the Register Book, procured or made by fraud shall
be null and void”. Section 91 of the Land Act gives special powers
to the Registrar/ Commissioner Land Registration, it states, “
subject to the Registration of Titles Act, the Registrar shall without
referring a matter to a court or a District Land Tribunal, have
powers to take such steps as are necessary to give effect to this
Act, whether by endorsement or alteration or cancellation of
certificates of title, the issue of fresh certificates of title or
otherwise. The registrar shall, where a certificate of title or
instrument is illegally or wrongly obtained, call for the duplicate
certificate of title or instrument for cancellation, correction or
delivery to the proper party”.
9.2 Uganda Land Commission should accordingly deal with their
Property in plot 61 Kitante Road uninterrupted as has been the
case. ULC should dispose of it in accordance with the law and
Government policy.
9.3 Uganda Land Commission should always carry out annual
stocktaking of all Government properties under their control and
prepare freehold titles to guard against unscrupulous people
83
grabbing government land/property. Ministry of works, Transport
and Communication and Lands Department would be of good help
in this endeavor
9.4 Mr. Nyombi Robert, Registrar of Titles should be relieved of his
duties on grounds of dishonesty and lack of integrity and liable for
prosecution for abuse of office. The Public ServiceCommission
should initiate disciplinary proceedings and ask him to show cause
why he should not be relieved of his duties and be prosecuted.
9.5 Mr. Serwanga, Senior state Attorney who abused his office and
authority by allowing to be used to serve Pradip Karia’s interests
should show cause why he should not be removed from office and
be prosecuted for abuse of office. Investigations revealed that he
has left Attorney General’s Office at the time of completion of these
investigations. Since abuse of office is criminal, charges should be
preferred against him under the Penal Code S.87 which provides
that, .
“A person who, being employed in a public body or a
company in which the Government has shares, does or
directs to be done an arbitrary act prejudicial to the interests
of his or her office, commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven
years.”
9.6 Mr Tibisaasa showed a high level of dishonesty, gross negligance
and not wanting to tell the truth about the ownership of Plot 61
when in his letter in October 1997 he categorically stated that the
stakeholders in the property were Uganda Land Commission and
when shown the letter he did not dispute it. But when answering to
84
the question of ownership of plot 61 he changed and stated that he
could not. This explains why he failed to prevent the fraud. Mr
Tibisaasa should show cause why he should not be removed from
his office for neglecting his duty and when he colluded and failed to
protect Government property because of collusion with Park Royal
when he wrote the letter dated 23rd June 2004 to Sebalu and Lule
Advocates to assist Park Royal Ltd. The above also constituted
abuse of authority or public office and neglect of duty of which he
is liable for prosecution.
9.7 Ms Margaret Oguli Ouma acted ultravires her powers and authority
and acted unprofessionally too. Though she has ceased to serve as
Director Legal in the Movement Secretariat S.8(3) of the
Inspectorate of Government Act mandates this office to investigate
notwithstanding that at the time of the investigation, that person
has ceased to serve in the office concerned. Ms Oguli should show
cause why she should not be prosecuted for forgery, abuse of
authority and of public office when she signed false documents and
purported to act without authority contrary to s. 345(d) and s. 346
of the Penal Code. It is therefore recommended that the Principal
Judge, who is the current Supervisor of Ms Oguli Oumo, should ask
her to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be
initiated against her including preferring criminal charges against
her actions when she was Director Legal in the Movement
Secretariat.
9.8 Ms. Mulinde Mukasa a Senior Officer in the Land Administration
Department be advised to carry out her work with dedication and
truthfulness as a lot of dishonesty is detected in her answers to the
investigators which does not reflect well on her part. She is
85
evasive and consequently non-committal. Unbefitting of the caliber
of a person holding such an office.
9.9 Mr. Pradip Karia breached the Local Government Act when he
chaired the KCC Finance Committee of 23/2/1996 which dubiously
revised premium and ground rent for Plot 61 Kitante Road from
73m to 25 m. Third Schedule of the Local Government Act - Local
Government Councils Regulations Paragraph 4, bars a member of
the District or Urban Council from attending a meeting of a
Committee, Board or Commission of the Council where he or she
has a pecuniary interest. Regulation 4 states that,
“ 1) If any member of the District, Subcounty or Urban
council or of any committee, board or commission of a
council, (a) has any pecuniary interest in a proposed contract
or any other matter and (b) is present at any meeting of that
council, board, commission or committee at which that
contract or other matter is the subject of consideration, he or
she shall at that meeting disclose that interest and shall not
take part in any consideration or discussion or vote on any
question relating to that contract or that matter, and that
person shall withdraw from the meeting”. Sub regulation 3
also states that “ Any person who fails to comply with
subregulation (1) of this regulation commits an offence and
is liable on conviction to imprisonment for not less than six
months and not more than three years without an option of
a fine unless that person establishes to the satisfaction of
court that he or she did not know, (a) that he or she had
pecuniary interest in the contract, proposed contract or any
matter and (b) that the contract, proposed contract or other
86
matter was the subject of consideration at any meeting.
Therefore, failure to disclose the interest is an offence of
which Mr Pradip Karia is liable for prosecution. Failure to
disclose the interest is also prohibited conduct under Article
233 of the constitution (1995) and the Leadership Code Act
2002 Section 8 & 9. Mr Pradip is in breach of the Leadership
Code. Under Section 9 of the leadership Code Act, “ (1) A
leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public
body or board or council or committee, of which he or she is
a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or
she has personal interest is to be discussed.(2) A leader
attending a meeting under subsection (1) of this section
shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal
interest. (3) A leader who fails to comply with the provisions
of this section breaches this Code and shall be (a) cease to
be a member of that public body, board, council,
commission, or committee”. Under Section 8 (3) of the
Inspectorate of Government Act, “the Inspectorate may, in
the performance of its duties under this section, investigate
into the actions of any person that may have been done
while that person was serving in a public office not
withstanding that that at the time of the investigation, that
person has ceased to serve in that office.” Mr. Pradip Karia
should according to the above provisions cease to be
member of the KCC- Central Division Council. Mr Pradip also
abused his office and he is liable to prosecution and causing
financial loss. Criminal charges should be preferred against
him under the Penal Code S.87 which provides that, “A
person who, being employed in a public body or a company
in which the Government has shares, does or directs to be
87
done an arbitrary act prejudicial to the interests of his or her
office, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.”
INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT
MARCH 2007.
88
Related docs
