The formerly interdicted Commissioner for Land Registration Baker Mugaino over corruption and abuse of office charges is again culpable for fraudulent cancellation of the certificate of title for Kibuga block 28 plot 540 (worth billion of Shillings) at Makerere that belongs to an 82 years old wheelchair bound lady.Mugaino, who, was reinstated in August by the presidential directive that ruled against the interdiction by IGG following the arbitrarily cancellation of the certificates of title (Kibuga Block 12 Plots 658, 659, and 665 in Kisenyi; Kibuga Block 4 Plot 152 in Namirembe; and Kisugu, Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 250) previously issued to Tropical Bank Ltd, Akugizibwe Gerald Mugera, and Namayiba Park Hotel, is expected to restore momentum at the Land Registration Department and resolve ownership disputes across Uganda than fueling them.However, there are still unresolved matters of which he is cognizant of like the cancellation of titles that were derived from Kibuga block 28 plot 540 at Makerere yet it has been brought to his attention that the letters of Administration used to acquire the court order he claims to implement were forged.The Deputy Registrar of Family Division clarified in the letter dated July 8, 2025 to the detectives of Criminal Investigations Directorate about the verification of the letters of Administration vide HCT-00-FD-AC-0611 of 2006; the estate of late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi. The letter reads in part “……According to our records, Administration Cause 0611 of 2006 was filed in this honorable court by Uganda Police to verify the authenticity. It was established that these Letters of Administration were applied for by Nansubuga Zaitun (Niece) and Luswata Abdu (grandson) in respect of the estate of the late Nakayima Kaliji (Deceased) and the same was granted on the 27th day of July, 2006 by High Court judge, Justice Eldad Mwangusya. The copy of the grant you attached for verification with Administration cause No. 0611 of 2006, for the estate of the late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi does not match with the name of the deceased on the grant of Letters of Administration vide Administration Cause No. 0611 of 2006.This is therefore to inform you that the estate of the late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi (deceased) which you requested to be verified does not exist in the registry of the High Court Family Division……” the letter reads partly. The Family Division court decision was followed by the police investigative report on the case of alleged forgery and uttering false document vide Wandegeya CRB 421/2025 that was reported by Mukalazi Joshua Kizito to wit Letters of Administration vide HCT-00-FD-AC 0611 of 2006 of the estate of late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi by Miriam Kuteesa. After thorough investigation, it was confirmed from Family Court that the Administration Cause No. 0611 of 2006 was for the estate of Nakayima Kaliji (deceased) not for the estate of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi and the same court confirmed that the estate of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi does not exist in the registry of the High Court Family Division. Following the investigations, the suspect Kuteesa Miriam was arrested and the case file was forwarded to the Resident Senior State Attorney LDC court and charges of forgery and uttering false documents were sanctioned against her. On August 11, 2025, the suspect was arraigned before the LDC Magistrates Court and was subsequently remanded to Luzira Prison. Kuteesa Mariam was later granted bail but the case is ongoing at the stage of hearing.In yesterday’s hearing, one of the key witnesses, the son of Nantumbwe Kizito was cross-examined by the lawyers from Alliance Advocates led by Brian Othieno. The Chief Magistrate adjourned the matter to January 29, 2026. In court also was an 82-year-old Nantumbwe Kizito, (main witness) who has been painfully following and battling with a gang of organized land grabbers who use forged documents to misuse the judicial system. All this pain inflicted on this widow for almost 20 years was based on forged letters of Administration which would have been verified by court and the commissioner for land so that she enjoys the fruits of her labour and the peace of the country. In the fresh Civil suit no. 0756 of 2025, after establishing that the judgment was obtained by fraud and trickery, the Commissioner of Land Registration is jointly accused and sued for abetting and participating in this fraud by purporting to implement the decree without first verifying the grant of the letters of administration and failing to participate during court proceedings in order to enable court reach a just and fair decision without being misled. Instead of defending the owners of the land, the office of the Commissioner is clearly quoted on page 31 of Justice Murangira’s judgment that “the Principal Registrar in the first defendant’s office (commissioner for land registration) verified that instruments appearing on the questioned suit photocopy certificate of title are none existent and in terms of Section 1(h) and 54 of the Registration of Titles Act, the 2nd to 7th defendants (the registered owners of the land) registration is invalid. The role of the commissioner was to give a clear record of the registry and guide court correctly, surprisingly after the purported registration of Kuteesa on the title in 2010, the then acting commissioner of land registration in 2011 wrote to court putting court on notice that a duplicate certificate of title was availed to him by the defendants (owners of the land) of the matter that he physically verified the title to be authentic and took out copies and certified them basing on the record of lands office. The then acting commissioner Robert Nyombi indicated in his letter to the court copied to the Minister of Lands, enforcement agencies, IGG, Chairman presidential land task force that he was under tremendous threat. This was a clear cry for protection from organized gangs of land grabbers.FACTS OF THE MATTER The genuine owners of the land; Nantumbwe Edith Kizito, Nankya Erina, Joshua Mukarazi and Dauda Kiwuta (plaintiffs) have dragged Kuteesa and Commissioner for Land Registration (defendants) to court in suit No. 0756 of 2025 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 095 of 2009 on grounds that the latter wrongly obtained judgment by Justice Joseph Murangira in High Court Suit No. 095 of 2009, an order setting aside the judgment , a consequential order nullifying all transactions done under the said judgment, a declaration that all orders arising from the said judgment are illegal and a nullity. Nantumbwe Edith Kizito purchased land formerly comprised in and known as Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 at Makerere herein after being referred to as “the suit land” in 1973 from Nakalanzi Christine. Nantumbwe took effective occupation of the suit land developed part of it with a huge residential house which she occupies to date, in 1994, Nantumbwe transferred the suit land into the names of Nankya Erina, Joshua Mukalazi and Dauda Kiwuta who have ever since been registered owners and in occupation of the same till they sold part of the suit land. The late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi ceased to be the registered proprietor of the suit land on January 20, 1969 when the suit land was transferred into the name of Nakalanzi Christine from whom Nantumbwe purchased and thus the suit land did not form part of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi.Kuteesa Miriam together with Muhammed Kasule Salongo (now deceased) in the year 2009 filed a suit as Administrators of the estate of late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi and together with the Commissioner Land Registration claimed that the suit land formed part of the estate of late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi whereas not and were granted an ex-parte judgment after intentionally refusing to serve the plaintiffs who were actually living on the suit land. This was fraudulently done with an intention of cancelling the plaintiffs’ certificate of title.On learning about the ex-parte judgment the plaintiffs applied to have it set aside but the application was dismissed by Justice Joseph Murangira and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before the appeal could be heard by the Court of Appeal, the parties agreed to explore an amicable settlement of the dispute and as a result a consent judgment was entered into in both High Court and Court of Appeal respectively and the appeal was withdrawn amicably and in good faith.Kuteesa later ignored all the settlements and applied for the execution of the High Court decree seeking to cancel the plaintiff’s registration on the register contrary to the settlement of the High Court and Court of Appeal.It was at this point that Nantumbwe and her children were tipped that Kuteesa used a forged grant of letters of administration to obtain judgment and tricked Court into giving judgment yet she had no valid authority to sue on behalf of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi implying that the judgment and decree arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 095 of 2009 had been fraudulently obtained premised on a forged grant of letters of administration hence null and void and ought to be set aside.COMMISSIONER OF LAND REGISTRATION FAULTEDFollowing the cancellation of the title block 28 Plots 1244 in April 2025, some Ugandans of the sound mind believe that this action was irregular, contrary to law and in breach of the statutory duties of the office of the Commissioner Land Registration. It is against this background that the office of the commissioner of land registration failed in its duties and actively facilitated the ambitions of the land grabbers.The implementation of the decree No. 095 of 2009 by the Commissioner for Land Registration, while aware and with massive evidence that Kuteesa obtained the decree using forged letters of administration leaves a lot to be desired.The Commissioner was aware that for Kuteesa to secure an ex-parte order number 095 of 2009, she presented forged letters of administration ‘granted to her’ in 2006. Besides, court records indicate that the genuine owners of the letters of administration were Nansubuga Zaitun and Luswata Abdu, which she simply manipulated. On August 27, 2010, David Sendawula Mukasa renounced his administration of the estate of Musa Muganzi Kalanzi granted under AC No. 141 of 1986 0n October 30, 1986 in favour of Miriam Kuteesa, a daughter of his co-administrator Joyce Wanyana who died on December 26, 2002 vide civil suit no. 095 of 2009 and miscellaneous application no. 283 of 2010 between David Sendawula (plaintiff) Miriam Kutesa and other others (defendants). Justice Billy Kainmura granted letters of administration to Miriam Kuteesa on February 16, 2011. For purposes of registration, she presented different letters of administration also in her names and was granted in 2011. This implies that Kuteesa had two grants. Why would the Commissioner for lands ignore this? How was it possible to register Kuteesa in 2010 using the letters of administration of 2011 and yet the court order of 2009 was obtained using the letters of administration obtained in 2006? In the miscellaneous application 1863 of 2017 arising out of civil suit no. 095 of 2009 of Miriam Kuteesa vs Commissioner for land registration before Her Lordship Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya it was ruled that the commissioner effects the orders issued under Civil suit 095 of 2009 to Kuteesa immediately before the warrant of arrest against the commissioner is issued. The same Judge Hon Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Lugadya in the Miscellaneous application number 223 of 2018 arising from the civil suit no. 500 of 2013 ordered that all dealings, transactions and undertakings by the Commissioner for Land registration and others in respect of Kibuga block 28 plot 540 Makerere land made in contravention of the decree in Civil suit 500 of 2013 dated February 2014 are null and void. The title of the land duly acquired by the applicant Wilberforce Ssekubwa is to be restored by the Commissioner for land registration and transferred in the names of the applicant as per decree of court issued vide civil suit 500 of 2013 dated February 27, 2014. The titles created out of the suit land from the land comprised in Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 Makerere for plots 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247 were irregularly created and therefore cancelled. The question here is; How could the same Judge order the commissioner to give the same piece of land to two different people (Ssekubwa and Kuteesa)? Couldn’t the commissioner for land registration detect this anomaly/ fraud and raise a red flag? All the fraudulent documents were formally presented to the office of the Commissioner for lands but it is not clear why the repeated requests by the genuine owners of the land to verify Kuteesa’s forged letters of administration and an explanation on why she had two grants were ignored.The police investigations report confirming the forgery of Kuteesa’s 2006 Letters of Administration was submitted to the commissioner so that he acts on the fraud and administratively clean the register in accordance with section 88 of the Land Act Cap 236 and other provisions of the registration of Titles Act cap 240. Although section 88 of the Land Act empowers the commissioner to rectify errors in the register without referring to court, in this matter it remains unattended to the disadvantage of the legitimate owners.By ignoring the 2016 High Court and 2019 Court of Appeal valid settlements of the matter that conclusively maintained the rightful owners and rendered decree No. 095 of 2009 unenforceable thereafter, the commissioner acted unlawful. The office of the commissioner for land registration did not only act outside the law but also violated section 88(2) of the Land Act Cap 236 which expressly requires the Commissioner to take appropriate action where the title has been wrongfully obtained. Ignoring this statutory duty gravely undermined judicial authority and eroded the integrity of the land registry.The reversal of former Commissioner for Lands, Sarah Kulata’s lawful decision of reversing the fraudulent 2010 entry of Kuteesa to the register and reinstating the genuine owners in accordance with provisions of the Land Act section 88(2) puts Mugaino on the spot and leaves very many unanswered questions. Kulata had professionally complied with the required legal process including holding a public hearing where all parties were involved. On the contrary Commissioner Baker Mugaino later reversed this legal rectification of the register without any legal basis. Such internal reversals, without consideration of contrary evidence undermine finality in registration and were ultra vires.It was unlawful to reverse the public hearing ruling where all parties were represented. The commissioner for lands ruled that the matter exceeded his mandate and should be resolved in court. However this ruling was later unilaterally reversed by the same commissioner on the same facts, based on a private request by one of the parties. This clandestine reversal was illegal and fraudulent. The other unanswered question for the commissioner for lands is why would he invite Gen Kahinda Otafiire in the letter dated April 1, 2025 in a special meeting yet he was not a party in the matter in Civil Suit 095 of 2009?Why can’t the commissioner for lands have mercy for the 82year-old wheel bound widow who painfully settled the matter without following the third party’s influence to implement settlement decrees. The ageing widow appeals to the President, Minister of State for Lands, Speaker of Parliament, representative of the elderly in parliament, religious leaders and right thinking members of the civil society to see justice in her lifetime.

The formerly interdicted Commissioner for Land Registration Baker Mugaino over corruption and abuse of office charges is again culpable for fraudulent cancellation of the certificate of title for Kibuga block 28 plot 540 (worth billion of Shillings) at Makerere that belongs to an 82 years old wheelchair bound lady.

Mugaino, who, was reinstated in August by the presidential directive that ruled against the interdiction by IGG following the arbitrarily cancellation of the certificates of title (Kibuga Block 12 Plots 658, 659, and 665 in Kisenyi; Kibuga Block 4 Plot 152 in Namirembe; and Kisugu, Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 250) previously issued to Tropical Bank Ltd, Akugizibwe Gerald Mugera, and Namayiba Park Hotel, is expected to restore momentum at the Land Registration Department and resolve ownership disputes across Uganda than fueling them.

However, there are still unresolved matters of which he is cognizant of like the cancellation of titles that were derived from Kibuga block 28 plot 540 at Makerere yet it has been brought to his attention that the letters of Administration used to acquire the court order he claims to implement were forged.

The Deputy Registrar of Family Division clarified in the letter dated July 8, 2025 to the detectives of Criminal Investigations Directorate about the verification of the letters of Administration vide HCT-00-FD-AC-0611 of 2006; the estate of late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi. The letter reads in part “……According to our records, Administration Cause 0611 of 2006 was filed in this honorable court by Uganda Police to verify the authenticity. It was established that these Letters of Administration were applied for by Nansubuga Zaitun (Niece) and Luswata Abdu (grandson) in respect of the estate of the late Nakayima Kaliji (Deceased) and the same was granted on the 27th day of July, 2006 by High Court judge, Justice Eldad Mwangusya. The copy of the grant you attached for verification with Administration cause No. 0611 of 2006, for the estate of the late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi does not match with the name of the deceased on the grant of Letters of Administration vide Administration Cause No. 0611 of 2006.This is therefore to inform you that the estate of the late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi (deceased) which you requested to be verified does not exist in the registry of the High Court Family Division……” the letter reads partly.

The Family Division court decision was followed by the police investigative report on the case of alleged forgery and uttering false document vide Wandegeya CRB 421/2025 that was reported by Mukalazi Joshua Kizito to wit Letters of Administration vide HCT-00-FD-AC 0611 of 2006 of the estate of late Musa Kalanzi Muganzi by Miriam Kuteesa. After thorough investigation, it was confirmed from Family Court that the Administration Cause No. 0611 of 2006 was for the estate of Nakayima Kaliji (deceased) not for the estate of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi and the same court confirmed that the estate of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi does not exist in the registry of the High Court Family Division. Following the investigations, the suspect Kuteesa Miriam was arrested and the case file was forwarded to the Resident Senior State Attorney LDC court and charges of forgery and uttering false documents were sanctioned against her. On August 11, 2025, the suspect was arraigned before the LDC Magistrates Court and was subsequently remanded to Luzira Prison. Kuteesa Mariam was later granted bail but the case is ongoing at the stage of hearing.

In yesterday’s hearing, one of the key witnesses, the son of Nantumbwe Kizito was cross-examined by the lawyers from Alliance Advocates led by Brian Othieno. The Chief Magistrate adjourned the matter to January 29, 2026. In court also was an 82-year-old Nantumbwe Kizito, (main witness) who has been painfully following and battling with a gang of organized land grabbers who use forged documents to misuse the judicial system. All this pain inflicted on this widow for almost 20 years was based on forged letters of Administration which would have been verified by court and the commissioner for land so that she enjoys the fruits of her labour and the peace of the country.

In the fresh Civil suit no. 0756 of 2025, after establishing that the judgment was obtained by fraud and trickery, the Commissioner of Land Registration is jointly accused and sued for abetting and participating in this fraud by purporting to implement the decree without first verifying the grant of the letters of administration and failing to participate during court proceedings in order to enable court reach a just and fair decision without being misled. Instead of defending the owners of the land, the office of the Commissioner is clearly quoted on page 31 of Justice Murangira’s judgment that “the Principal Registrar in the first defendant’s office (commissioner for land registration) verified that instruments appearing on the questioned suit photocopy certificate of title are none existent and in terms of Section 1(h) and 54 of the Registration of Titles Act, the 2nd to 7th defendants (the registered owners of the land) registration is invalid. The role of the commissioner was to give a clear record of the registry and guide court correctly, surprisingly after the purported registration of Kuteesa on the title in 2010, the then acting commissioner of land registration in 2011 wrote to court putting court on notice that a duplicate certificate of title was availed to him by the defendants (owners of the land) of the matter that he physically verified the title to be authentic and took out copies and certified them basing on the record of lands office. The then acting commissioner Robert Nyombi indicated in his letter to the court copied to the Minister of Lands, enforcement agencies, IGG, Chairman presidential land task force that he was under tremendous threat. This was a clear cry for protection from organized gangs of land grabbers.

FACTS OF THE MATTER

The genuine owners of the land; Nantumbwe Edith Kizito, Nankya Erina, Joshua Mukarazi and Dauda Kiwuta (plaintiffs) have dragged Kuteesa and Commissioner for Land Registration (defendants) to court in suit No. 0756 of 2025 arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 095 of 2009 on grounds that the latter wrongly obtained judgment by Justice Joseph Murangira in High Court Suit No. 095 of 2009, an order setting aside the judgment , a consequential order nullifying all transactions done under the said judgment, a declaration that all orders arising from the said judgment are illegal and a nullity.

Nantumbwe Edith Kizito purchased land formerly comprised in and known as Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 at Makerere herein after being referred to as “the suit land” in 1973 from Nakalanzi Christine. Nantumbwe took effective occupation of the suit land developed part of it with a huge residential house which she occupies to date, in 1994, Nantumbwe transferred the suit land into the names of Nankya Erina, Joshua Mukalazi and Dauda Kiwuta who have ever since been registered owners and in occupation of the same till they sold part of the suit land. The late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi ceased to be the registered proprietor of the suit land on January 20, 1969 when the suit land was transferred into the name of Nakalanzi Christine from whom Nantumbwe purchased and thus the suit land did not form part of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi.

Kuteesa Miriam together with Muhammed Kasule Salongo (now deceased) in the year 2009 filed a suit as Administrators of the estate of late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi and together with the Commissioner Land Registration claimed that the suit land formed part of the estate of late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi whereas not and were granted an ex-parte judgment after intentionally refusing to serve the plaintiffs who were actually living on the suit land. This was fraudulently done with an intention of cancelling the plaintiffs’ certificate of title.

On learning about the ex-parte judgment the plaintiffs applied to have it set aside but the application was dismissed by Justice Joseph Murangira and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before the appeal could be heard by the Court of Appeal, the parties agreed to explore an amicable settlement of the dispute and as a result a consent judgment was entered into in both High Court and Court of Appeal respectively and the appeal was withdrawn amicably and in good faith.

Kuteesa later ignored all the settlements and applied for the execution of the High Court decree seeking to cancel the plaintiff’s registration on the register contrary to the settlement of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

It was at this point that Nantumbwe and her children were tipped that Kuteesa used a forged grant of letters of administration to obtain judgment and tricked Court into giving judgment yet she had no valid authority to sue on behalf of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi implying that the judgment and decree arising out of High Court Civil Suit No. 095 of 2009 had been fraudulently obtained premised on a forged grant of letters of administration hence null and void and ought to be set aside.

COMMISSIONER OF LAND REGISTRATION FAULTED

Following the cancellation of the title block 28 Plots 1244 in April 2025, some Ugandans of the sound mind believe that this action was irregular, contrary to law and in breach of the statutory duties of the office of the Commissioner Land Registration. It is against this background that the office of the commissioner of land registration failed in its duties and actively facilitated the ambitions of the land grabbers.

The implementation of the decree No. 095 of 2009 by the Commissioner for Land Registration, while aware and with massive evidence that Kuteesa obtained the decree using forged letters of administration leaves a lot to be desired.

The Commissioner was aware that for Kuteesa to secure an ex-parte order number 095 of 2009, she presented forged letters of administration ‘granted to her’ in 2006. Besides, court records indicate that the genuine owners of the letters of administration were Nansubuga Zaitun and Luswata Abdu, which she simply manipulated. On August 27, 2010, David Sendawula Mukasa renounced his administration of the estate of Musa Muganzi Kalanzi granted under AC No. 141 of 1986 0n October 30, 1986 in favour of Miriam Kuteesa, a daughter of his co-administrator Joyce Wanyana who died on December 26, 2002 vide civil suit no. 095 of 2009 and miscellaneous application no. 283 of 2010 between David Sendawula (plaintiff) Miriam Kutesa and other others (defendants). Justice Billy Kainmura granted letters of administration to Miriam Kuteesa on February 16, 2011. For purposes of registration, she presented different letters of administration also in her names and was granted in 2011. This implies that Kuteesa had two grants. Why would the Commissioner for lands ignore this? How was it possible to register Kuteesa in 2010 using the letters of administration of 2011 and yet the court order of 2009 was obtained using the letters of administration obtained in 2006?

In the miscellaneous application 1863 of 2017 arising out of civil suit no. 095 of 2009 of Miriam Kuteesa vs Commissioner for land registration before Her Lordship Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya it was ruled that the commissioner effects the orders issued under Civil suit 095 of 2009 to Kuteesa immediately before the warrant of arrest against the commissioner is issued. The same Judge Hon Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Lugadya in the Miscellaneous application number 223 of 2018 arising from the civil suit no. 500 of 2013 ordered that all dealings, transactions and undertakings by the Commissioner for Land registration and others in respect of Kibuga block 28 plot 540 Makerere land made in contravention of the decree in Civil suit 500 of 2013 dated February 2014 are null and void. The title of the land duly acquired by the applicant Wilberforce Ssekubwa is to be restored by the Commissioner for land registration and transferred in the names of the applicant as per decree of court issued vide civil suit 500 of 2013 dated February 27, 2014. The titles created out of the suit land from the land comprised in Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 Makerere for plots 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247 were irregularly created and therefore cancelled. The question here is; How could the same Judge order the commissioner to give the same piece of land to two different people (Ssekubwa and Kuteesa)? Couldn’t the commissioner for land registration detect this anomaly/ fraud and raise a red flag?

All the fraudulent documents were formally presented to the office of the Commissioner for lands but it is not clear why the repeated requests by the genuine owners of the land to verify Kuteesa’s forged letters of administration and an explanation on why she had two grants were ignored.

The police investigations report confirming the forgery of Kuteesa’s 2006 Letters of Administration was submitted to the commissioner so that he acts on the fraud and administratively clean the register in accordance with section 88 of the Land Act Cap 236 and other provisions of the registration of Titles Act cap 240. Although section 88 of the Land Act empowers the commissioner to rectify errors in the register without referring to court, in this matter it remains unattended to the disadvantage of the legitimate owners.

By ignoring the 2016 High Court and 2019 Court of Appeal valid settlements of the matter that conclusively maintained the rightful owners and rendered decree No. 095 of 2009 unenforceable thereafter, the commissioner acted unlawful. The office of the commissioner for land registration did not only act outside the law but also violated section 88(2) of the Land Act Cap 236 which expressly requires the Commissioner to take appropriate action where the title has been wrongfully obtained. Ignoring this statutory duty gravely undermined judicial authority and eroded the integrity of the land registry.

The reversal of former Commissioner for Lands, Sarah Kulata’s lawful decision of reversing the fraudulent 2010 entry of Kuteesa to the register and reinstating the genuine owners in accordance with provisions of the Land Act section 88(2) puts Mugaino on the spot and leaves very many unanswered questions. Kulata had professionally complied with the required legal process including holding a public hearing where all parties were involved. On the contrary Commissioner Baker Mugaino later reversed this legal rectification of the register without any legal basis. Such internal reversals, without consideration of contrary evidence undermine finality in registration and were ultra vires.

It was unlawful to reverse the public hearing ruling where all parties were represented. The commissioner for lands ruled that the matter exceeded his mandate and should be resolved in court. However this ruling was later unilaterally reversed by the same commissioner on the same facts, based on a private request by one of the parties. This clandestine reversal was illegal and fraudulent. The other unanswered question for the commissioner for lands is why would he invite Gen Kahinda Otafiire in the letter dated April 1, 2025 in a special meeting yet he was not a party in the matter in Civil Suit 095 of 2009?

Why can’t the commissioner for lands have mercy for the 82year-old wheel bound widow who painfully settled the matter without following the third party’s influence to implement settlement decrees. The ageing widow appeals to the President, Minister of State for Lands, Speaker of Parliament, representative of the elderly in parliament, religious leaders and right thinking members of the civil society to see justice in her lifetime.