Our Reporter,
The embattled Commissioner for Land Registration Baker Mugaino is on a hot seat for fraudulently cancelling the certificate of title for Kibuga block 28 plot 540 (worth billions of Shillings) at Makerere that belongs to an 82 years old wheelchair bound lady.
Mugaino, who, is already in courts of law for other matters related to 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 among others has been pushed to the wall into saving his image to avoid a second interdiction in the same year. However, it is very hard to mislead the public on matters that were duly tabled in courts of law and resolved by learned justices as clearly stipulated in this article.
The learned Commissioner for Land Registration (CLR) is intentionally acting and ignoring the fact that Justice Joseph Murangira’s judgment was based on Miriam Kuteesa’s 2006 forged Letters of Administration which he annexed to his ruling of 2009 and decree of 2010.
This fact has severally been made clear to him and his office by the registered owners of the land in writing. When he ignored the alarm, the land owners ran to police and Family Division of the High Court of which the reports and proceedings were attached to written complaints that were duly submitted to defiant Mugaino. He is even aware about the ongoing proceedings of a criminal matter of forgery against Miriam Kuteesa before the Chief Magistrate at the Law Development Centre Court.
Just like a drowning man who looked for support from a huge serpent, the CLR is covering-up by purportedly trading falsehoods to shield his name and job. He is aware that the Supreme Court could not confirm the execution of the 2010 decree because it was not brought to its attention. In the Supreme Court Ruling Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2014 on July 21, 2015 Hon. Justices; B.M Katureebe, MS Arach Amoko, Dr. BJ Odoch, JWN Tsekooko, GM Okello gave following orders;
i) The notice of Appeal in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 294 of 2013 filed on December 30, 2013 is hereby struck out.
ii) Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2014 is struck out.
iii) The Interim order of stay of execution in Supreme Court Misc Appl. No 02 of 2014 issued on January 23, 2014 is vacated forthwith.
However, the Supreme Court never made any decision on the Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 and decree of 2010. They struck out the notice of appeal in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 294 of 2013 and Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2014 which was an appeal by the registered owners of the Makerere land comprised in Block 28 Plot 540 on the settlement executed on January 21, 2013 by the then Registrar, Justice Elias Omar Kisawuzi and set aside in seven days later by the same Registrar on January 28, 2013 following a complaint by a stranger to the matter without listening to both parties that had entered the consent judgment.
It should be noted that after the Supreme Court judges striking out the Consent Appeal as indicated above, the Civil reference No. 98 0f 2012 that was pending the ruling to validate an appeal in the Civil suit 95 of 2009 by Edith Nantumbwe before late Justice Amos Twinomujuni which Justice SDK Kavuma, (the then Deputy Chief Justice) delivered on July 28, 2015 validating the Appeal in the Civil Suit No. 95 of 2009 which granted the decree of 2010. The valid appeal No. 163 of 2015 became active before the Court of Appeal.
To prove this further Miriam Kuteesa through her lawyers Muhwezi Law Chambers filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 297 of 2015 arising from Misc Appl. No 20 of 2014 (Supreme Court) which the Commissioner Land Registration alleges confirmed the 2010 decree. The unanswered question here is; Why would Kuteesa and her lawyers rush to Court to file an application to challenge reference No. 98 of 2012 arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2014 (Supreme Court) referred to by Mugaino to having settled the civil suit of 95/2009 conclusively?
This application was filed by Miriam Kuteesa (applicant) vs Edith Nantumbwe (Respondent) in the Court of Appeal misc. appl. No 297 of 2015 before the panel of three judges namely Hon. Justice Remmy Kasule JA, Hon Justice Elizabeth Musoke JA and Justice Cheborion Barishaki JA. The Kuteesa’s application was looking for orders;
i) To nullify the ruling of Hon. Justice Kavuma (Misc Appl No. 98 of 2012 delivered on July 28, 2015.
ii) To strike out the Respondents’ valid Appeal (Nantumbwe’s appeal) No. 163 of 2015 on Justice Murangira’s Judgment on Civil suit No. 95 of 2009 and 2010 decree that Mugaino is trying to implement in 2025.
If the Supreme Court conclusively settled the matter in civil suit 95 of 2009, why was there a valid appeal in court appeal no 163 of 2015 which Kuteesa and her lawyers were fighting out and failed? The three Justices concurred in their ruling on Pages 17 – 18 of Misc Appl. No. 297/2015; that subsequent applications referred to by the Supreme Court did not include the Court of Appeal Misc Appl. No. 098 of 2012. In the final consideration “we have already made a finding above that Court of Appeal Civil Ref No. 98 of 2012 was not one of the applications that were declared as having no legal basis by the Supreme Court. Therefore the argument by Counsel’s applicant (Miriam Kuteesa) that the Appeal should be struck out by the ruling of the Supreme Court cannot hold.” Therefore the Miscellaneous Application No. 297 of 2015 was dismissed in favour of the registered owners of Block 28 Plot 540. This automatically confirms that there was a valid appeal in the Court of Appeal against the judgment of Justice Murangira in the Civil Suit no. 95 of 2009 and decree of 2010. The ruling of the three learned Justices was delivered on September 20, 2016 and allowed the Appeal to be heard on its merit and if the appeal was settled in court of appeal by Justice Kiryabwire, this ended civil suit 95 of 2009.
The Commissioner for Land Registration reference to Civil Ref. No. 85 of 2020 which was an application brought by the Kuteesas seeking to set aside the Consent Judgment by Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire was dismissed by a quorum of three Judges namely Justice Christopher Madrama, Elizabeth Musoke and Justice Mulyagonja who delivered their verdict on October 02, 2020. The unanswered questions here are;
i) If Justice Madrama challenged the consent settlement as the leading Judge as alleged by CLR, why did he dismiss the same ref. 85 of 2020 with costs?
ii) If Justice Madrama had challenged the attempt by Nantumbwe to enter an agreement with Kuteesa in Court of Appeal to compromise the orders of Court in Civil Suit 095 of 2009 and decree of 2010, why didn’t he set aside the settlement of Justice Kiryabwire? Instead he dismissed the application to set aside that court of appeal settlement implying that the settlement stands valid up to today.
For Mugaino to claim and insist on implementing Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya’s orders of 2018 in Misc. Appl. 1863 of 2017 arising from Civil Suit 95 of 2009 and decree of 2010 which orders were settled in 2016 in High Court and in 2019 in a Higher Court (Court of Appeal) and have never been set aside by any court is illegal and misleading.
In trying to justify the illegality of the Letters of Administration that brought the judgment and decree of 2009 and 2010 respectively, Mugaino alleges that Nantumbwe and group as he calls them are misleading the public and Commissioner Land Registration about the existence of two grants yet in his submission, he confirms the grant to Miriam Kuteesa of 2011 by Justice Billy Kayinamura as valid and is the one he (CLR) used to register Kuteesa.
This is misleading because several complaints including the one of September 26, 2025 and reminder of November 26, 2025 have been duly received by his office and they all clearly bring out facts on the existence of two grants. The grants include HCT-00-CV-AC-611-2006 in the names of Miriam Kuteesa and Mohammed Kasule as Administrators of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi and were granted on July 13, 2006 which were used in the Civil Suit 95 of 2009 to obtain ex-parte judgment and decree of 2010 as highlighted in Justice Murangira’s judgment on page 2 “the plaintiff applied for and were granted letters of administration on 13 July 2006 annexed and marked as ‘P2’. This grant was proven by Uganda Police and Family Court Division (High Court) as not belonging to the estate of Musa Kalanzi Muganzi which Kuteesa claims to be Administering. Instead the grant belongs to the estate of Nakayima Kaliji and the administrators are Nansubuga Zaitun and Luswata Abdu and it was granted by Justice Eldad Mwangusya on July 27, 2006. The grant of 2011 that Mugaino says is valid and register-able is exactly Kuteesa’s second grant which he confirms unknowingly in his circulating document. The question remains;
i) How is it possible to use a non-existent grant of Kuteesa of 2011 to register her on February 01, 2010 as records on the title in HIS indicate?
ii) And it is him in his document of November 26, 2025 confirming that indeed Kuteesa was granted a valid letter of administration in 2011; where did CLR get powers of the seers to predict the future?
The Commissioner for Land Registration claims that on November 21, 2025 Lady Justice Nassuna Matovu of the High Court in Misc. Appl. No. 863 of 2025 dismissed the Nantumbwe Application that sought to compel the commissioner lands to maintain the applicants on the register and in contempt. However, the unanswered question here is; i) How would this take precedent yet there is overwhelming evidence in Justice Nassuna’s ruling of November 21, 2025 confirming that Kuteesa is not denying executing High Court and Court of Appeal settlements?
In the same ruling Justice Nassuna confirms that the consent in both the High Court and Court of Appeal are valid and has never been set aside. There is overwhelming evidence that Kuteesa received Shs50m as part payment on July 23, 2020 and acknowledges receipt with her finger print. Her lawyers also acknowledged payments in writing on January 31, 2020 and February 26, 2020 respectively. It is also on court record that on February 21, 2022, Kuteesa’s lawyers M/S Nyanzi, Kiboneka and Mbabazi advocates filed in Court of Appeal in execution of the balance of the money of the consent judgment.
The biggest unanswered questions her are
i) What would be the interest of the Commissioner for Land Registration in enforcing the settled decree of 2009 in favour of a dishonest and fraudulent litigant who settled and got paid partly and is still in court claiming the settled land?
ii) The office of the commissioner is at the apex of the land registration and the boss is a qualified advocate of the High Court, what compels him to vigorously push to execute consequential orders of 15-year-old decree that was settled 7 years ago?
iii) His predecessors rejected implementing Justice Rugadya’s consequential orders in implementing a 15-year-old decree of 2010, what supernatural powers is the current CLR invoking to turn the tables?
iv) If the three Justices of the Court of Appeal ref 85 of 2020 declined to set aside a consent Judgment of Kiryabwire which CLR calls an agreement, why wouldn’t he acknowledge the efforts of his fellow judicial officers and believe the matter was settled? It is on record that Kuteesa does not deny the settlement and has never set it aside?
