OBWAKABAKA BWA BUGANDA

(KINGDOM OF BUGANDA)

MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSION ON LAND

INQUIRY IN UGANDA

ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LAND LAW, PROCESSES OF LAND ACQUISITION,

LAND ADMINISTRATION, LAND MANAGEMENT AND LAND
REGISTRATION.

25 APRIL 2018
BULANGE MENGO
P.O.BOX 7451, KAMPALA, UGANDA.
MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF LAND LAW, PROCESSES OF LAND ACQUISITION, LAND
ADMINISTRATION, LAND MANAGEMENT AND LAND REGISTRATION IN
UGANDA.
_________________

1. Introduction:

On 8 December, 2016 the President of Uganda appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the
Effectiveness of the Law, Policies and Processes of Land Acquisition, Land Administration, Land
Management and Land Registration in Uganda (the Commission) headed by Hon. Lady
Catherine Bamugemereire. The Commission is required to make recommendations for improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of the law, policies, and processes of land acquisition, land
administration, land management, land registration in Uganda and proposing necessary reforms.1

The Commission commenced public hearings across the country and has received several
memoranda. On 15 January 2018 it submitted an interim report to H.E the President of Uganda
with several recommendations including the need to abolish the Uganda Land Commission
(ULC); to create a new Land Authority and to reduce the current land tenures “from four to
perhaps three: freehold, customary freehold and leasehold.”2

The Kingdom of Buganda which, through the Kabaka of Buganda, is vested with
constitutional rights and interests in land wishes to submit its views and recommendations to the
Commission not only to ensure that past wrongs are remedied but also to ensure that its people’s
native rights and interests in land are protected under the law. The Kingdom’s views derive from
both a historical and contemporary context of land allocation, land tenure and management in
Buganda before and after Uganda’s independence. In summary, the Kingdom’s principal
concerns on land cover five major areas namely:

1
The Commissions remit is essentially to:
(i) Investigate and inquire into the law, processes and procedures by which land is administered and registered in
Uganda.
(ii) Investigate and inquire into the role and effectiveness of the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) in administering
Public land and the Land Fund.
(iii) Investigate, inquire into and review the effectiveness of the relevant bodies in the preservation of wetlands,
forests and game reserves and examine ways in which the challenge of human habitation in those areas can be
resolved.
(iv) Investigate, inquire and solicit views on the role of traditional, cultural and religious institutions who own large
tracts of land with occupants in a bid to enhance better landlord/tenant relationship.
(v) Assess the legal and policy framework on Government land acquisition.
(vi) Identify, investigate and inquire into the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms available to persons
involved in land disputes.
2
See news release entitled Clarification on Commission Interim Report Recommendations dated 21 February 2018.

2
(i) The proposal to abolish the Mailo land tenure and to fuse it with other tenures into a single
tenure contrary to Article 237 of the Constitution and the public concern that the Commission
was essentially established to target land tenure in Buganda and to ultimately abolish Mailo
land tenure in Buganda in a manner similar to what previous regimes have attempted to do.

(ii) The proposal to introduce a new regime for the compulsory acquisition of land contrary to
Article 26 and 237 of the Constitution in a manner that mostly disenfranchises land owners
and occupants in Buganda which constitutes the most sought after land for commercial and
public interests on account of the fact that it lies at the heart of the country’s transport system,
public administration, business and commerce.

(iii) The delay in effecting the complete return of and/or compensation for expropriated land
to the Kingdom of Buganda contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution, the Traditional Rulers
(Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act of 1993 and the Agreement on the return of certain
assets between the Government of Uganda and the Kabaka of Buganda of 2013.

(iv) The need to reform land laws - in particular the Land Act of 1998 (as amended) - that
perpetuate unfair laws between registered land owners, Housing and Urban Development,
tenants and other occupants on land so as to improve land management and administration as
well as introduce effective and quick dispute resolution mechanisms across the country.

(v) The need to address factors that are responsible for or that contribute to rampant land
grabbing and the overall crisis in the land sector in Uganda. These factors include
institutional weaknesses in entities relevant to the law and order sector as well as the land
sector in general. These institutions include the Ministry of Lands and the District Land
Boards, the Uganda Police Force, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions and the Judiciary.
Because of the institutional weaknesses these bodies delay, neglect and/or fail to investigate
and prosecute land related crimes in a timely and judicious manner. To these weaknesses is
added the runaway corruption in government institutions with responsibility over land; a
compromised, slow and sometimes unfair judicial process in the resolution of land matters;
increased pressure on land resulting from an increased population and demand for land;
undue politicization of and interference in land administration and a lack of a comprehensive
and consultative process aimed at land reform.

Sadly, the resolution of the land question in Uganda since independence, and particularly in
1967, 1975, 1998 and 2007, has often been subjective and done in a piecemeal or ad hoc manner
often without due consultations with all the stakeholders. Each development, right from 1900 has
been heralded as a reform by its advocates, yet still the land sector remains in a state of
disorganization. We sincerely hope that this Commission will take the time to consider all of the
evidence before it objectively and judiciously and that as a result of this Commission’s work,

3
recommendations will be made to critically review and take necessary measures to address the
malaise that afflicts land tenure in Uganda once and for all.

4
2. A brief history of land in the Kingdom of Buganda:

Land tenure in pre-colonial Buganda was based on a traditional system of land holding,
occupation and or usage based on a clan structure headed by the Kabaka (Ssabatakka) - who had
supreme authority over all land in the Kingdom. Land was held under the clan system with the
Clan Head (Omutaka) having authority to apportion and re-distribute to members of the Clan.
There were no registerable interests in the land. In this epoch land holding in Buganda was based
on the following categories: Clan Land — Obutaka; the rights of the King and his chiefs—
Obutongole; individual hereditary rights—Obwesengeze and rights of occupation—Ebibanja.
Traditional land holding in Buganda was radically transformed once the 1900 Agreement was
signed between Buganda and Britain. Under S. 15, the 1900 Agreement introduced a new land
regime where land was privatized and the Kabaka lost his traditional authority over all land in
Buganda. All the land was divided amongst the British Crown (9,000sq miles), the Kabaka
(350sq miles), 1,000 prominent chiefs (8,000 sq. miles), swamps and forests (1,500 sq. miles)
and the rest was left as official estates, religious missions and a few other prominent
personalities. Because the land was distributed in square miles (“mailo”), the new land tenure
which created registrable land interests was known as Mailo Land Tenure. The Mailo land tenure
system is mainly established in the Kingdom of Buganda under two categories namely Official
Mailo3 and Private Mailo.

Private Mailo land was held by individuals in their own capacity including the Kabaka in his
own name, royals, individual chiefs, notables and other ordinary citizens. Owners of such private
Mailo were free to dispose it by way of sale, gift or testamentary dispositions. Since 1900 the
Mailo land tenure has become so entrenched in the minds of land owners in Buganda, Baganda
and non-Baganda alike, and has almost become customary. Over the years Mailo land has
become commoditized and many people from within and outside Buganda have acquired Mailo
interests in Buganda.

Following the colonial redistribution of land two problems arose. The first was the
dispossession of certain Clans of their land and the second was the problem of the uneasy and
unequal relations that developed between the new landed groups vis-a-vis the occupants of the
land – mostly the peasants. To address the latter problem, the Protectorate Government
introduced the Busuulu4 and Envujjo Law of 1928.

The colonial land tenure system remained in place well after Uganda attained independence
from Britain. However, in 1966, following the first post-independence coup, the Government

3
The office of the Kabaka of Buganda (350 Square Miles), the Namasole of Buganda, the Katikkiro of Buganda,
Omuwanika, Omulamuzi, Naalinya’s land, Ssaza and Gombolola Chiefs and other officials who held land in their
official capacity.

4
Busuulu means Ground and Envujjo means a percentage levied on cash crops on the land.

5
abolished Kingdoms in Uganda and expropriated its land. All the public land and the official
estates were confiscated and its management taken away from the constitutionally established
Buganda Land Board (BLB) and were vested in the Uganda Land Commission (ULC). ULC
assumed control over all former Crown lands including any rights, title, estate or interest in land
of which the Kabaka’s government was seized, possessed or entitled.

The 1975 Land Reform Decree (LRD). The LRD was issued by President Idi Amin who
declared that all land in Uganda was public land to be administered by the ULC in accordance
with the Public Lands Act of 1969. By this declaration, the decree abolished Mailo ownership
and other land tenures by converting the same to leasehold to be granted by the Commission. The
decree further altered the legal status of tenants by abolishing the Busuulu and Envujjo Law of
1928, The Ankole Landlord and Tenant Law of 1937 and The Toro Landlord and Tenant Law.
The LRD remained the law applicable to land until the 1995 Constitution.

In 1993 the Government of Uganda enacted the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and
Properties) Act of 1993. This law was intended to restore to traditional rulers’ assets and
properties previously owned by them or connected with or attached to their offices but which
were confiscated by the State and to make other provisions relating to, or consequential upon
those assets and properties. Under this law certain land and properties were returned immediately
to the Kingdom of Buganda while others were to be returned after negotiations between the
Kingdom and the Government of Uganda.

In 1995 a new Constitution was promulgated. Under Article 26 of this Constitution, every
person has a right to own property either individually or in association with others. Under Article
246 of the same Constitution the institution of traditional leader or cultural leader was clothed
with corporate legality and granted the capacity to hold assets or property in trust for itself and
the people concerned. The Constitution recognizes land to belong and vest in the citizens of
Uganda in accordance with the land tenures of freehold, mailo, customary and leasehold all
provided for under Article 237.

The 1998 Land Act (Cap 227) was enacted to provide for, amend and consolidate the law
relating to tenure, ownership and management of land. Section 2 of the Land Act, in the same
spirit as Article 237 of the Constitution vests land in the citizens of Uganda who hold the land
under land tenures of Freehold, Mailo, Customary and Leasehold. The Land Act, under Section
3, recognizes tenants by occupancy and defines their rights. The 1998 Land Act was amended in
2010 to address the issue of forceful evictions of occupants from land and to enhance the security
of occupancy of lawful and bona fide occupants on registered land. In spite of a public outcry
from across the country the Government passed the law that it believed was to strengthen the
bona fide occupant’s rights but which in fact only further strained the already tense relationship
between registered land owners and occupants. The amendment maintained the nominal ground
rent payable by the tenant by occupancy. However, in spite of this law the problem of forceful
evictions has persisted.

6
On 1 August 2013, pursuant to the 1995 Constitution and Section 2 of the Traditional Rulers
(Restitution of Assets and Properties) of 1993, an Agreement was signed between President
Yoweri K. Museveni and the Kabaka of Buganda. The Agreement was aimed to return certain
expropriated assets to the Kingdom of Buganda.

The above brief outline on the constitutional and legal history and developments on land in
Buganda forms the basis on which the Kingdom wishes to articulate its concerns on the land
question in the country and proffers certain recommendations below.

7
3. Proposals to fuse Mailo and Freehold land tenure into one:

In its interim report to his H E the President, on 15 January 2018, the Commission
recommended the “reduction of current land tenures from four to perhaps three; freehold,
customary freehold and leasehold.” This recommendation was greeted by a public outcry
particularly from individuals and institutions such as the Kingdom of Buganda who hold Mailo
land titles. The outcry arose out of the fact that no known public demand had been made before
the Commission for the abolition of Mailo land tenure. Also because no persuasive or justifiable
reasons were tendered by the Commission to back up the recommendations. Moreover, it was
unclear what the recommendation meant to registered owners of Mailo land titles. Were they to
be canceled? If so, would this not be contrary to Article 26 and 237 of the Constitution? In
response to these concerns the Commission issued a press release wherein it denied
recommending “the abolition of ownership rights currently represented by Mailo land tenure.”
In it’s clarification, the Commission stated that its recommendation was in fact “efforts be made
to fuse, over time, these parallel freehold type systems into a single tenure to introduce clarity
and cohesions”. To the Kingdom, and indeed other registered owners of Mailo land titles, the
clarification created more confusion because:

(i) Although the Commission denied recommending the abolition of Mailo interest it in fact
made clear that it wanted there to remain only the tenure of freehold, customary freehold
and lease hold. Mailo tenure was to disappear and be somehow fused into these
categories. The net effect of the Commission’s recommendation is the abolition of Mailo
land tenure.

(ii) The concept of customary freehold was novel and unexplained.

(iii) It was unclear how the Commission intended to fuse dissimilar land tenures of
Mailo, Customary and Freehold into one without undermining the proprietary interests of
registered Mailo owners of the land. Perhaps the Commission proceeded on the wrong
presumption that freehold land tenure synonymous with Mailo land tenure. If this is the
case, we argue that this would be wrong because, both in historical and legal terms, Mailo
land tenure is distinct from Freehold land tenure. It is therefore not easy to understand
how the two may be fused without intractable legal and political complications.

(iv) A change of land tenure enshrined in Article 237 of the Constitution would require a
Constitutional amendment in accordance with Article 259 of the Constitution, as well as,
the amendment of the Land Act.

(v) There was no overwhelming evidence from the public demanding for or necessitating the
abolition of the Mailo land tenure. In fact, we believe the reverse is true. So, it was

8
 unclear where the Commission obtained its evidence and justifications from in
recommending the abolition or the need to fuse land tenure in a manner that would do
away with the Mailo land tenure.

For the above reasons the Kingdom of Buganda is apprehensive about the proposal to abolish
the Mailo land tenure or to fuse it with other tenures into a single tenure. It believes that Mailo
land tenure is uniquely part of Buganda’s history and is now deeply engrained in its culture,
customs and traditions. The Mailo land tenure is unique in the way it recognizes the interests of
the registered proprietors and occupants of land. Indeed, customary practices have developed that
define the terms of ownership, usage, occupation and inheritance of land under the Mailo land
regime. It accords each party with specific rights and interests that have been recognized over the
years. It is difficult to imagine how these would be defined and understood in a fused tenure
system.

The unique character of the Mailo land tenure in Buganda may explain why, even after it was
abolished by General Idi Amin in 1975, the Mailo land division in the Ministry of Lands
remained and Mailo land titles continued to be issued and held. In effect Mailo land tenure was
only abolished in name and not in fact.

It is sometimes wrongly argued that Mailo land tenure represents historical injustices of the
land distribution under the 1900 Agreement. On this basis, it is argued that the abolition of this
tenure would somehow redress these historical injustices. But these arguments wrongly presume
that Mailo land holdings today remain the same as they were in the early twentieth century. The
reality is different because, as a result of conveyancing over the years, individuals and
institutions, both within and outside Buganda, have acquired Mailo land titles outside the
colonial land allocations under the 1900 Agreement. Indeed, statistics available in the Land
Registry show that the historical beneficiaries of land under the 1900 Agreement have long
ceased to hold the land in question through succession, onward sales/transfers and other land
grants. Today a lot of Mailo land is owned or occupied by non Baganda.

It is important to point out that, as of today, the only entity that retains land as was allocated
under the 1900 Agreement is the institution of the Kabaka who still holds the 350 Sq. Miles that
is occupied by a variety of people including a lot of non-Baganda. This being the case, it would
be the institution of the Kabaka that would be most adversely affected by a proposal to either
abolish Mailo land tenure or somehow fuse Mailo land tenure with other tenures. This reality
explains the Kingdom’s fears that the proposed removal of mailo Land tenure is targeting the
Kabaka.

It is also claimed that Mailo land tenure is responsible for the lack of proper planning and
zoning of developments in peri-urban and urban centers. However, such claims cannot be
justified. The problem of congestion, poor planning, slums, poor sanitation and haphazard

9
developments can only be blamed on the lack of effective laws and poor implementation of
planning laws and policies. Mailo land tenure does not prohibit or preclude urban authorities
from formulating and implementing town plans within clearly demarcated development zones or
set standards. In any case it cannot be argued that poor planning and slummy conditions in other
parts of Uganda are attributable to the Mailo land tenure where it doesn’t exist. For these
reasons, it is doubtful that the fusion of land tenures will miraculously result in proper planning
of urban areas absent of effective laws and policies as well as effective and deliberate
implementation mechanisms by urban and town authorities.

Regarding the problem of overlapping and sometimes conflicting interests on the same land -
mostly under Mailo land tenure – between registered land owners and occupants, the Kingdom
agrees that there is a need to find a lasting solution. We believe that one of the main causes of
rampant and wanton evictions of occupants of land is the paralysis that arises out of the duplicity
of ownership by registered proprietors and tenants, bona fide or lawful occupants on land. We
consider that the solution to this problem lies, not in the abolition of Mailo land tenure or the
fusion of tenures, but in the de layering of ownership of land as well as the provision of
Leasehold certificates of titles to the landless groups occupying or using registered land. This
category of people need to be liberated once and for all. The protections under the current law for
bona fide occupants, bibanja holders or lawful occupants of land such as the payment on
nominal ground rent and prohibitions of evictions without court orders have not provided
sufficient security of tenure for these categories. The benefits of Ekyapa Mu Ngalo policy, which
allows occupants on Kabaka’s land to acquire Leasehold land titles at a reasonable cost and on
favourable terms are available for all to see. Under the Ekyapa Mu Ngalo scheme individuals
(formerly unregistered bibanja owners or occupants) have obtained land titles under a subsidized
fee arrangement and without discrimination. All categories of occupants have been given a
chance to regularize their occupancy on land and to obtain leases. Based on the successes of the
Ekyapa Mu Ngalo scheme we invite the Government to utilise the Land Fund to help
unregistered occupants on land to acquire Leasehold land titles on a willing seller willing buyer
basis.

We consider that, if well managed and funded, the idea of the Land Fund under S. 41 of the
Land Act would solve the problem rather quickly. S. 41 envisages a Land Fund that gives loans
to tenants by occupancy to enable them acquire registrable interest on land or to enable the
government to purchase or acquire registered land to enable tenants by occupancy to acquire
registrable interest on land. We believe this is where the Government should focus its energies
provided always that the Land Fund is used in a transparent and in a non-discriminative way
against one group in favour of another. The Land Fund should be used to address problems of
tenants by occupancy where ever they exist across the country. It should also be used on the basis
of a willing seller willing buyer as well as on the principles of fair and prompt compensation
pursuant to S. 41(6) of the Land Act.

10
 Lastly, and perhaps more importantly to the Kingdom of Buganda, the fact that much of
Buganda’s land was expropriated and managed without accountability by the Government from
1967 and land has not been fully returned to the Kingdom and is managed by Government
agencies; that much of this land has been converted from Leasehold or Mailo land tenure to
Freehold by the ULC and District Land Boards render the proposal to fuse land tenures even
more suspect and tenuous in the eyes of Buganda Kingdom. Why should violent expropriation of
the Buganda Kingdom’s land by Government be perpetuated and defended when all other
victims of expropriation had their property returned to them or were duly compensated?

It is for these reasons that the Kingdom of Buganda is strongly opposed to the idea of
abolition of Mailo land tenure or fusion of tenure systems as suggested by the Commission or at
all. The Commission needs to dispel public fears that its work is targeting land tenure in
Buganda.

11
4. Proposals for a new regime for the compulsory acquisition of land:

On 13th July 2017 the Deputy Attorney General Hon. Mwesigwa-Rukutana tabled the
Constitutional Amendment Bill 2017 – aimed to amend Article 26 of the Constitution. On 18 th
July 2017 Hon. Betty Amongi, the Minister responsible for land, issued a ministerial a statement
on the proposed Bill. According to Hon. Amongi, the Bill aims to change the law so that once
there is a dispute on the value of land that Government wishes to acquire compulsorily – it may
deposit the money in Court and compensate the owner only after the court has resolved the
dispute. In justifying the change in the law, she reasoned that:

(i) Compulsory acquisition is a critical tool for development.

(ii) Government wants to expedite land acquisition for strategic initiatives - roads, electricity
transmission, railway lines, health care schools etc.,

(iii) Government has been frustrated – Kyambogo; Kitante Road, Centenary park;
Kasokoso; Kampala Northern By-pass and Kampala Express Highway and that;

(iv) Government is losing money paid for delays to contractors for stalled projects.

The Kingdom of Buganda, and other interested parties, are not convinced about the need to
change the law to allow for the compulsory acquisition of land without prompt payment of fair
and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the said land
contrary to Article 26 and 237 of the Constitution. The spirit of this legislation is that a person
should not be dispossessed of their land unless they have been fairly and adequately
compensated. Therefore, any policy law or practice that flouts this provision is ultra vires the
Constitution and must not be allowed to stand.

The Kingdom considers that Government’s proposals on compulsory acquisition of land

contradict the spirit and law enshrined in Articles 26 and 237 of the Constitution. Furthermore,
that they only seek to reverse the Supreme Court decision in the case of Irumba vs UNRA5 where
it was held that compensation must be paid before land is gazzetted for acquisition by the
Government.

The Kingdom believes that the current law is sufficient to address compulsory acquisition –
instead of amending the law it should address issues of assessment, corruption, cases of
overpayment whereby some people are compensated and others not. Instead of changing the law,
the Government should set up a mechanism to curb speculators who buy land in anticipation of
projects and hike prices of the land earmarked for public projects. We also believe that the idea

5
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014.

12
to leave compensation questions to court is problematic. This is because Courts are in Uganda
are generally slow, sometimes are corrupt and are costly.

To make matters worse, the Government of Uganda has a bad record and has been poor and
slow at compensation of some verified claims. There are many cases in point including delays in
payment even where the Chief Government Valuer has made assessment. These include
compensation for Plot 52 Kampala Road and Mutesa House in London to Buganda Kingdom and
the compensation for Kibale - Hoima refinery project where 100 families were affected.

The Kingdom considers that there are appropriate laws under which the Government can
compulsorily acquire land in Uganda. It believes that land for projects can be acquired through
the same laws after adequately compensating the owner or occupants.

Most infrastructural developments in Uganda took place from around the 1940’s to the
1970s. The laws on adequate, prompt and fair compensation to land owners before compulsory
acquisition were in full force. Today it appears to be governance issues that hinder government
projects and those are the ones that need to be addressed.

13
5. The delayed return of expropriated land, assets and other Kingdom properties:

On 1st August, 2013, an Agreement was executed between the Government of Uganda and
the Kabaka of Buganda, wherein, several Kingdom properties were returned, including land in
urban centers/towns, land where former administration headquarters were situated and land
unclaimed, unutilized, or unoccupied by any lawful or bona fide occupant as defined in the
constitution of 1995 and the Land Act.

The Kingdom of Buganda is concerned about the delay in effecting the complete return of
expropriated land to the Kingdom of Buganda under this agreement and contrary to Article 26 of
the Constitution, the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act of 1993.

To date, the Lands Ministry, through Uganda Land Commission, has unlawfully continued to
withhold and facilitate transactions over land that has lawfully been returned and vested under
the Kabaka of Buganda. Only about 8% of the 320 land titles have been returned. There has been
a tendency of Freehold titles being created on top of Mailo land Titles, fresh White Pages being
created over land that is already titled and also failure to enter leases on titles where leases were
created especially by Uganda Land Commission and other District Land Authorities. Case in
point is official Mailo in Buvuma and Busabala where Freehold Titles and leases have been
created in total disregard of existing interests.

The ULC and District Land Boards, without regard to due process and the law, have
continued to issue freehold and leasehold land titles over land that was returned to the Kingdom
of Buganda. The Land registry has also continued to allow transactions over known Buganda
properties without lawful consent from the Kabaka of Buganda. The ULC still collects ground
rent from leases over properties that were returned to the Kingdom.

ULC continues to hold onto 280 Certificates of Title that were returned to the Kabaka of
Buganda. A case in point is Block 255 Plot 98 and 97 that was leased to KCCA under LRV
KCCA 69 Folio 13 by ULC yet the same land was returned and belongs to the Kabaka of
Buganda. It was recommended by the then Attorney General (Hon. Fred Ruhindi) for
cancellation but no steps have been taken to rectify the defect. In 2015 the Kingdom handed
over 20 land titles to the Commissioner Land Registration for vesting into the Kabaka of
Buganda but the titles have not been vested as of today. The Kingdom is still stuck with 300
Titles in the names ULC yet to be vested in the names of Kabaka of Buganda. This has led to
multiple titling. We recommend that the Government addresses this problem before it becomes a
crisis.

14
6. The need to reform land laws - in particular the Land Act of 1998 (as amended):

The Kingdom of Buganda considers that there is an urgent need to reform the land laws in
Uganda especially those that that perpetuate unfairness between registered land owners, tenants
and other occupants on land; to improve land management and administration as well as
introduce effective and quick dispute resolution mechanisms across the country.

The Kingdom of Buganda has previously made recommendations on the 1998 Land Act.6 In
particular it has argued that the Land Act has not been fully and properly implemented and may
be described as a lame duck. Many of the administrative or implementation mechanisms
envisaged there in such as the Land Boards, Land Tribunals, Land Committees, Recorders,
Mediators etc., are not in place or are dysfunctional where they exist. There are no certificates of
occupancy for customary ownership. The Land Fund is not effective and the mess at the Land
Registries across the country is phenomenal. These failings point to one solution namely the
urgent need for a holistic review of all the laws applicable to the Land Sector. The entire Land
Act and the Registration of Titles Act needs review and revision. The following are some of the
key Challenges that emanate from or are associated with the Land Act:

(i) Weak institutional capacity and administration at the centre and at local or district level.
The establishment and functioning of District Land Boards has been poor. Many Districts
are unable to recruit qualified technical staff for District Land Offices and cannot perform
adequately. A District Land Office is required to have professional staff including a Land
Officer, a Surveyor, a Registrar of Titles, a Valuer, and a Physical Planner. Very few
districts have functional District Land Boards. Very few meet this requirement.

(ii) Lack of public awareness on the Land Act for the majority of the population.

(iii) Lack effective dispute resolution mechanism under the Land Act. Jurisdiction on
Disputes over land was moved from Local Council and Magistrate’s Courts to a system
of Land Tribunals. This was later reversed. Today the courts handle land disputes but they
are slow and compromised in some instances. Until these tribunals are re- introduced
there remains a serious bottleneck in the resolution of disputes in the land sector.

(iv)Absence of a comprehensive and accepted National Land Policy.

(v) A need for better coordination of various line ministries and departments involved with
land, environment, forestry and other natural resources and agriculture.

6
See Memorandum to the parliament of Uganda on the Land Amendment Bill 2007 dated 10th April 2008.

15
7. Other factors that affect the land sector:

Besides the above we believe that the following problems are responsible for the crisis in the
land sector and that unless they are addressed the crisis will persist. The factors are:

(i) Weaknesses in institutions relevant to the law and order sector as well as the land sector
in general. These institutions include the Ministry of Lands and the District Land Boards,
the Uganda Police Force, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. Because of the
institutional weaknesses inherent in these bodies there are delays and frustrations in the
investigation and prosecution of land related crimes in a timely and judicious manner.

(ii) Corruption in government institutions with responsibility over land.

(iii) A compromised, slow and sometimes unfair judicial process in the resolution of
land disputes.

(iv) Increased pressure on land resulting from an increased population and demand for land.

(v) Undue politicization and the creation of multiple layers of authority within the
Government structures that often interfere and cause confusion within land
administration. Land matters are concurrently handled by officials in the President’s
office, the Police, the District Resident District Commissioners, Uganda Land
Commission, District Land Boards, District Chairpersons, the Ministry of Lands and the
courts. There is no doubt that the multiplicity of centers that handle land maters and
disputes has contributed greatly to the crisis within Uganda’s land sector.

(vi) Lack of a comprehensive and consultative process aimed at land reform. Land Laws are
often passed in a piecemeal or fashion and without due consultations of all stake holders.
The land Act and all amendments thereof are a case in point. Because of this there is
apathy and a resistance to comply with laws that are regarded as unfair and
discriminatory.

16
8. Recommendations:

In view of the foregoing, the Kingdom of Buganda makes the following recommendations:

(i) That the Commission abandons the proposal to abolish the Mailo land tenure or to fuse it
with other tenures into a single tenure.

(ii) That the Government should capitalize and use the Land Fund to liberate landless groups and
remove the duplicity of ownership on Mailo land. We thus support the Commission’s
recommendation that the Land Fund be purposefully capitalized and restructured to work
effectively. We add that the Fund should be utilized in a transparent and in an
indiscriminative manner. It should also be used on the basis of a willing seller willing buyer
as well as on the principles of fair and prompt compensation pursuant to S. 41(6) of the Land
Act.

(iii) That the Government drops the proposed amendment on compulsory acquisition of
individually owned land before adequate compensation to facilitate government projects. We
support the idea for the establishment of a special land tribunal for the quick determination of
disputes arising from valuation of project affected persons. Such a court or tribunal may be
tasked to complete its work within a short period of time.

(iv) That the Government expedites the complete return of expropriated land to the Kingdom of
Buganda pursuant to Article 26 of the Constitution, the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of
Assets and Properties) Act of 1993 and the Agreement on the return of certain assets between
The Government of Uganda and the Kabaka of Buganda of 2013.

(v) That the Government holistically reviews and revises the Land Act to improve land
management and administration as well as introduce effective and quick lands dispute
resolution mechanisms across the country. In this connection we support the Commission’s
interim recommendation that the District Land Tribunals should be reestablished as a full
time dispute resolution mechanism with and expanded membership. Additionally, we
recommend that the Government ensures that the Land Division of the High Court should get
more judges to make timely judgments and clear case backlog.

(vi) That the Government addresses the factors we have out lined above that contribute greatly to
the crisis within Uganda’s land sector.

(vii) That a federal system of Government be reinstated so that each area in Uganda can
manage, control, protect and promote the planned utilization of it’s land in a manner that is
consistent with its peculiarities and development aspirations.
17
DATED at Kampala this 25th day of April, 2018.

……………………………………………
CHARLES PETER MAYIGA
KATIKKIRO

18