A fairly old lady, Specioza Nassuuna Nsumba has launched a third round of legal battle in a period of twenty years, targeting seven acres of land at St Balikuddembe, previously Owino market. Nassuuna first stepped forward with those claims in 1994, via a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the defunct Edward Elue and Company Advocates law firm, against equally defunct Kampala City Council (KCC).
She claimed then, as she claims today, and, as she claimed previously in 2019, how she owns 7.34 acres out of the entire land holding Owino market. She says her grandfather, Mariteni (Martin) Mukasa aka MM owned Block 12, Plot 24 located in Owino market. She says she is entitled to that land since she is the administrator of the estate of MM.
She is armed with, and uses Letters of Administration Justice Augustus Kania issued to her to justify her assertion. Irrespective of all that, Nassuuna has on two previous occasions filed cases, targeting to recover the said land, only to withdraw those cases before they could be either heard or decided by court.
In1994 in particular, when she first moved to seeking seven hundred million shillings in compensation from KCC, she pledged never in future to make further claims of ownership of Block 12 Plot 24 in Owino market. That was after the law firm of Ssendege, Ssennyondo and Company Advocates on behalf of KCC, had ably debunked her utterances, compelling her to withdraw her case.
Nassuuna had sued KCC over the civil tort of trespass based on what she claimed was her land in Owino. We have fortunately been able to retrieve the relevant ruling retired Justice John Bosco Katutsi delivered on May 20th1994 pursuant to Nassuuna’s wish to withdraw her case.
Justice Katutsi’s ruling echoes Nassuuna’s pledge never in future to bring up in court any other case in relation to the subject matter in issue. For purposes of proof, here is how the ruling reads; “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that leave (permission) be and is hereby granted to the plaintiff (Nassuuna) to withdraw the suit but on terms that she SHALL NOT bring any fresh suit against the City Council of Kampala based on the alleged trespass to the property and that she shall pay cost of this suit.”
The same ruling bears the signature of deceased Senior Counsel Edward Elue, signifying Nassuuna’s approval of the stated ruling and its contents. This gesture, since the said lawyer was the proprietor of the law firm of Edward Elue and Company Advocates, representing Nassuuna at that time. But contrary to the spirit and letter of the consent order, Nassuuna would return to court in 2019, technically suing the Commissioner of Land Registration (CLR) although in absentia.
Her prayer was for the RLR to issue to her a special certificate of title for land in Owino purportedly because her original title had gone missing. Crucially, you need to be reminded that Nassuuna’s main complaint in 1994 was about KCC’s alleged trespass on her alleged land in Owino, not that her alleged title over that land had been irretrievably lost.
Crucial to note too, in omitting to join CLR to the 2019 case, what Nassuuna sought to achieve was to deny the court the opportunity to know whether or not her claims were true or false. This view, since as the custodian of records of land registration, CLR would ideally be competent and able to tell who owns what land, how, when, where and why.
Thanks to the absence of CLR, Justice John Keitirima ended up trapped by Nassuuna, clearing her wish for a duplicate certificate of title, potentially turning her into owner of land in Owino, but in error. Thankfully, no sooner had the judgment leaked to them than the managers of Owino market, led at the time by Godfrey Kayongo Nkajja, quickly moved to court, filing an application, asking Justice Keitirima to rescind his earlier court order.
Kayongo’s group argued that as managers of the market at that point in time, they had vested interests in the issue touching on the legality of their landlord, pleading to Keitirima to permit them to join the case to present their concerns. Justice Keitirima remarkably realized his earlier mistake, greenlighting Kayongo’s entry into the case.
The new group subsequently asked the judge to permit them to pose questions to Nassuuna to prove her claims. That application tabled by Kayongo’s group and duly cleared by the presiding judge, compelled Nassuuna to subsequently ask her lawyers to withdraw the case, underlining her deep fear towards truth surrounding the matter at hand.
Third Round
Fast to 2024, Nassuuna is back in court, again for the third time in a row, regurgitating her 2019 request to be issued a duplicate certificate of title. Her lawyers this time round are Ambrose Tebyasa and Richard Nsubuga. But this is exactly the same case Nassuuna herself asked her lawyers to withdraw in 2019! This negatively portrays her as a deeply confused person, either caused by her advanced age or a huge appetite for land in Owino.
Consider, Kayongo’s group were back in 2019 seeking to cross-examine Nassuuna, rendering to her a fantastic opportunity to prove to the court the existence of her land in Owino. Imagine, she herself chose to skip the process, denying herself a very good opportunity to once and for all prove to court the existence of her land in Owino, hence rendering her an opportunity to secure a court order, compelling the Commissioner Land Registration (CLR) to give her a duplicate certificate of title for that land, if any at all.
Well, the current CLR Baker Mugaino has since sworn an affidavit in rebuttal of Nassuuna’s third case, detailing the successive owners of Block 12 Plot 24 from her grandfather all through to the present owner. The affidavit guides that late MM in the 1930’s transferred his interest in Block 12 Plot 24 to two gentlemen namely; Petero (Peter) Wasswa (PW) and Yokaana (John) Kasule (YK).
What this potentially infers is that Block 12 Plot 24 is no longer available to Nassuuna for her to administer on behalf of late MM’s estate. This renders her present wish to secure that land through court, to look like potentially wishful thinking. Upon the acquisition of the land from MM, Mugaino highlights, PW and YK on March 7th 1934, sold off 5.3 acres out of the 7.34 acres, to the Governor of the Protectorate government for a consideration of 5360 Uganda shillings.
He attaches a copy of the relevant transfer form dated March 7th 1934 to his rebuttal wherein he asks court to toss out Nassuuna’s third case. He goes on to assert how that particular transfer form was duly witnessed and duly consented to by the Ministers of the then Lukiiko of Buganda Kingdom.
The Governor, following his acquisition of the 5.3 acres of the original 7.3 acres sold to him by PW and YK, caused the registration under Freehold Register Volume (FRV) 39 Folio 21. He attaches the relevant title. PW and YK would thereafter on December 11th1939, reportedly sale the balance of the land they had acquired from MM, to the Governor at a fee of 6000 Uganda shillings, relinquishing their ownership of the entire land.
A copy of the relevant transfer issued to the Governor by the sellers is attached to Mugaino’s court documents for the perusal of court. That second piece of land was registered into the names of the Governor under FRV 55 Folio 5. Mugaino gives to court a copy of the relevant title for its perusal.
The said acquisition by the Governor of the Protectorate government was “entered and mapped on the cadaster as ‘Acquired by the Crown` implying that upon that said acquisition by the Governor, it turned into public land. Later in the 1960’s, the Governor reportedly leased the land to Kampala Municipal Authority (KMA) for a period of 199 years.
The government of Uganda in 1966 subsequently registered the land into the names of Kampala City Council, having been earlier registered as public land upon its acquisition by the Crown through the Governor of the Protectorate Government. Nassuuna and his lawyers insist that Block 12 Plot 24 as it is registered, belongs to her and that they have proof that the land has since time immemorial been Mailo land and that at no time had it ever been turned into public land.
She pointed out that there used to be a house and a garage on that land which she would rent out and get rental dues but she has been deprived of that money by KCCA’s `illegal trespass` on the land. She exhibits a survey report, adding the same emphasizes that the land belongs to the estate of her late grandfather but that she has since made several efforts to obtain a duplicate certificate from the Commissioner of Land Registration in vain. Consequently, she prays to court to do the needful and order the Commissioner of Land Registration to pay costs of the suit.
Author Profile
- Mr. Stephen Kasozi Muwambi is a seasoned crime investigative writer, majoring in judicial-based stories. His two decades’ experience as a senior investigative journalist has made him one of the best to reckon on in Uganda. He can also be reached via [email protected]
Latest entries
NewsJune 29, 2026MTN HIT WITH SHS2.3BN COURT AWARD: High Court rules telecom giant maliciously instigated prosecution of former senior manager Richard Mwami
NewsJune 26, 2026SEMAKADDE STRIKES BACK! Uganda Law Society Launches Rapid Response Unit to Shield Lawyers from State Crackdown
NewsJune 26, 2026‘I AM A LIVING STATUE’: How DR Congo’s most famous soccer fan is keeping Patrice Lumumba’s legacy alive
NewsJune 25, 2026JANET’S SICK LEAVE FORCES MUSEVENI SHAKE-UP! Muyingo handed Education docket, Kasolo promoted to head Foreign Affairs Ministry
