A 96-year-old landowner, Mzee Dibya Henry, has appealed to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Chief Justice to intervene in a long-running land dispute in Kyagwe, Mukono, in which he alleges that his land was transferred to a senior judicial officer through a court process involving land that, according to him, did not exist in the form described in the proceedings.
Mzee Dibya says the dispute concerns land located at Block 94, Plot 151 in Budugala, Kyagwe, Mukono, which he says was legally registered in his name in the land registration system on March 19, 2009.
According to the elderly landowner, the dispute arose after Justice Margaret Tibulya allegedly entered into a purchase agreement dated May 30, 2009, in which she purchased land from a person identified as Dibya Henry Wagaba.
Mzee Dibya, however, maintains that his name is simply Dibya Henry and that he has never been known as Dibya Henry Wagaba. He therefore questions how a transaction could have been conducted in a name different from his own, particularly when the land he says belongs to him had already been registered in the land system.
He further questions whether a proper land search was conducted before the alleged purchase agreement was executed.
The dispute later went before the High Court of Uganda at Jinja under Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013. Mzee Dibya says the case concerned a claim that he had allegedly given Justice Tibulya 10 acres on Block 94, Plot 18.
However, the elderly landowner disputes the existence of the property described in the claim, saying Block 94, Plot 18 had already been subdivided and was no longer in existence in the manner alleged.
Mzee Dibya says he did not participate in the court proceedings because the person named in the case was Dibya Henry Wagaba, while his own name is Dibya Henry. He maintains that he consequently did not understand the proceedings to concern him or his registered property at Block 94, Plot 151.
The case subsequently resulted in a decree identified as Civil Suit No. 101 of 2013.According to Mzee Dibya, the decree directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to recover 10 acres from Block 94, Plot 18 and transfer the land into the names of Justice Margaret Tibulya.
The 96-year-old now raises a central question over the subsequent
implementation of the decree: how land could allegedly be recovered from Block 94, Plot 151, which he says is his registered land, when the decree he refers to specifically mentioned Plot 18.
Mzee Dibya alleges that the Commissioner for Land Registration ultimately recovered land from Plot 151 despite there being, according to him, no specific court order directing the Commissioner to take land from Plot 151.
He argues that this has resulted in his registered property being affected by a court process concerning a different plot of land.
The elderly landowner has now appealed for intervention and clarification from the highest authorities, saying that at 96 years of age he is seeking justice and protection of the property he says he legally acquired and registered.
He particularly wants the authorities to establish how the alleged purchase agreement of May 30, 2009 could have been entered into against a person he says does not bear his name, and how the transaction could have involved land whose particulars, according to him, were inconsistent with his registered property.
Mzee Dibya is also questioning whether an official land search was conducted before the alleged purchase, and if so, what information was contained in the land registry at the time of the transaction.
The matter has taken another turn, with Mzee Dibya alleging that persons providing security, some of them reportedly armed, have been deployed on the disputed land and that Justice Tibulya has encroached on the property he claims as his.
The elderly landowner says the presence of armed security personnel has heightened his concerns and left him seeking protection as he pursues clarification over the ownership and administration of the disputed property.
His appeal is therefore directed to President Museveni, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Chief Justice to examine the circumstances surrounding the land transaction, the court proceedings, the decree and its subsequent implementation, and establish whether the land transferred or recovered corresponded with the property identified in the court proceedings.
At the centre of Mzee Dibya’s complaint are questions over the identity of the alleged seller, the description and existence of the land referred to in the purchase agreement and court proceedings, the status of Block 94 Plot 151 at the time of the alleged transaction, and the legal basis upon which land from Plot 151 was allegedly affected.
For the 96-year-old, the matter goes beyond a property dispute. He says it concerns the protection of his land rights and the need for a transparent explanation of how a property he says was already registered in his name came to be affected by proceedings concerning another plot.
He is calling for the relevant land and court records to be examined and for the authorities to establish the facts surrounding the transaction and subsequent transfer before any further action is taken on the disputed property.
