PHOTO: From right; Counsel Barnabas Ndawula with Buganda Kingdom former Katikkiros Owek. Dan Muliika, Owek. JB Walusimbi and Owek. Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere

● Names Top Officials Led By Bashir Kizito Who Intimididated Him From Giving Evidence In A Court Case Against BLB Which Kizito’s Side Lost 
● Denies Ever Forging Kabaka’s Signature, Challenging BLB To Produce Evidence
● Shows Letter From Kabaka Saluting Him For Perfrctly Serving Buganda Kingdom


COUNSEL BARNABAS Ndawula, former Head Legal Services at Buganda Land Board (BLB) has finally broken silence about his sacking rumour at the Kingdom’s Land board.
He says that was blackmail and malice spread by BLB official Bashir Kizito to taint his name, never was he sacked!
Ndawula has revealed to us how he willingly resigned the job in 2018 and His Majesty Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II thanked him for deligently serving the Kingdom, in a letter this leading investigative news website has seen!
Speaking to The News Editor Media, counsel Ndawula denied allegations made about him by a clique in BLB that he forged Kabaka’s signature to con BLB client challenging Bashir Kizito and group to produce proof of the signature he forged.
“Fact is, Bashir Kizito was afraid of me giving evidence in a court case Civil Suit NO. 557 of 2014 between Zee Properties Ltd and Kamal Lalani (Plaintiffs) Vs Adam Kirumira and Wycliff Kalema (Defendants). Kizito connived with the defendants in that case to malign me and be intimidated not to give evidence. Kizito and group even purpoted to file criminal charges against me just to derail me from telling the truth in court. However, their side lost and court ordered them to pay over UGX 300M in cost.” Said Counsel Barnabas Ndawula in his message to The News Editor.

ACCUSED: Kizito Juma Bashir

He said, in return, Bashir Kizito Juma chose to lead a blackmail campaign against him to the extent of his group telling lies how Ndawula was sacked yet he willingly resigned his juicy job at BLB.
For starters, we published a story in 2020 about BLB notifying Kabaka’s subjects in Uganda and in the Diaspora not to deal with Barnabas Ndawula son to late Beatrice and Kato of Kaliisizo in Kooki, on matters concerning BLB because he was sacked and nolonger representing them.
BLB said, Barnabas Ndawula was sacked two years ago (2018) after high court found him guilty of forging Kabaka Mutebi’s signature in connivance with one Herbert Musiitwa to steal land worth billions which belonged to John Mulindwa.
“We had to put the general public on notice to desist from dealing with Barnabas Ndawula on issues concerning Buganda Kindgom land. He is no longer at BLB, deal with him at your own risk.” Read official statement from BLB to The News Editor Media in 2020.

Lawyer Ndawula and his wife

Ndawula however calls this nonsense saying, the news paper notice came in 2020, two years after he resigned and left BLB, pinning the orchestrators for having a hidden agenda probably to tarnish his name.
“Bashir Kizito wanted to intimidate me but lost it. I am that kind of man who you can’t be easily scared. So i proceeded to give evidence and Kizito’s side lost!” Revealed counsel Barnabas Ndawula. Also click this and read; THE NAKED TRUTH: HOW SACKED LAWYER BARNABAS NDAWULA FORGED KABAKA’S SIGNATURE TO CON BLB CLIENT

In a Resignation mail on Monday August  2018 at 10:12 am to Mr. Martin Kasekende, BLB Chairman which was copied to David Mpanga, Premier Mayiga, then BLB MD Kyewalabye Male and a one Bukenya, Counsel Barnabas Ndawula wrote, “This is to formally tender in my resignation from the position of Head Legal services Buganda Land Board. I thank you and your entire Board for the opportunity you gave me to serve our Kingdom in such an esteemed position.”
Ndawula’s mail continues to say, “I am sincerely grateful for the guidance and kindness and maturity that the Board has shown me in my stay at Buganda Land Board. I joined Kingdom service at a time when it had been mooted that the land arm of the Kingdom be incorporated. I am happy to say that I leave BLB as a fully incorporated legal entity in total compliance with most of the regimes of Corporate governance.”
Ndawula revealed to his bosses how BLB emerged as a corporate entity of some renown with a cosmopolitan  footprint.

Counsel Barnabas Ndawula

“Iam glad that in some small way I played a part in this and in establishing a legal department that has managed to see us through myriad legal hiccups.” Wrote Barnabas Ndawula
He noted that “I am eternally glad for your choice at that time and of giving me an opportunity to not only witness but also contribute to this march to the top.”
Giving his reasons for leaving BLB, Mr. Ndawula said, “It has come to my reckoning that perhaps it is for me to move on and release myself to be able to serve the Kingdom in some other ways.”
He thanked the  entire Board, Management, the MD and staff of Buganda Land Board for the rich and rewarding experience that he had lived at the company.

A bout a year to his resignation, on November 8, 2017, Peter Mpanga the Kabaka Private Press Secretary wrote to Barnabas Ndawula extending Kabaka’s gratefulness for his legal abilities in handling controversial lawyer Male Mabirizi case against His Majesty the Kabaka.
Mpanga’s letter reads, “I have been instructed by The Kabaka to extend his gratitude to you and your legal team for the victory you achieved in Male Mabirizi case against Kabaka.”

Kabaka’s letter thanking counsel Ndawula for serving the Kingdom
“Kabaka is hopeful that this court victory will be pivotal in unlocking all that was locked and to cause shame to Mabirizi against Kabaka of Buganda.” Reads Mpanga’s letter congratulating Counsel Barnabas Ndawula for the job welldone.

Sources in BLB told this news website that, while still serving as BLB Head legal, Barnabas Ndawula reached an extent of forgery and misrepresentation when he entered a consent agreement on behalf of the Kabaka.
In Civil Suit No. 2464, Ndawula  connived with one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa and signed a consent agreement despite not being one of Kabaka’s Attorneys.
This agreement was later set aside through The Kabaka of Buganda vs Musiitwa (Miscellaneous Application No.729 of 2019) UGHCLD 67 (26th November 2019) because he Barnabas Ndawula had no right to do so. 

How did it come about?

In 2015, a one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa sought to steal land which belonged to John Mulindwa. He went to Buganda Land Board and connived with Barnabas Ndawula to form a scheme which included Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa going to court to force the Kabaka to give him a lease on Kyadondo Block 273 plot 4849, land which was already leased to John Mulindwa.
After Musiitwa going to court, Barnabas Ndawula together with lawyers from M/s Kasumba, Kugonza advocates without consent of the Kabaka or BLB went ahead and entered the Kabaka into a consent judgment on July 8th July 2016 agreeing to give Musiitwa a lease on part of this land measuring approximately 0.097 hectares and in the process depriving John Mulindwa of his land. 
Because he wasn’t an attorney of the Kabaka and therefore could not sign on behalf of the Kabaka, (At that time only Katikkiro Mayiga and Owek. David Mpanga could) Barnabas Ndawula illegally signed for Kabaka and informed court that the Kabaka had agreed to Musiitwa’s land grabbing and that the Kabaka was to fund Musiitwa’s lease application.
The Insider club allege that, the deal end had, “Musiitwa paying Ndawula a bribe in the region of Shs. 700m. To Musiitwa, the bribe was worth it because the said piece of land is valued in billions.”
All seemed well till Musiitwa went to execute the consent judgment and Buganda Land Board refused saying it was a fraudulent consent judgment. It is then that Ndawula’s fraud was unearthed. 
In his November 2019 ruling, Justice Henry I. Kawesa put aside the consent agreement. But this came at a cost to BLB in terms of time and legal costs.
In his wise ruling, justice Kawesa said, “It was evident that the persons who had the Applicant’s power of entering the consent judgment were the Katikkiro of Buganda (Charles Peter Mayiga) and the Attorney General of Buganda (David F.K Mpanga) vide Power of Attorney Registration No. 7934 of 2016 dated 2nd June 2016, and that neither the Applicant nor his Attorneys entered a consent as required by law.”  
Justice Kawesa said, the Applicant is aggrieved by the consent which obliges him to grant a lease on the land with multiple clients at no fee, that the suit land at the time of entering a consent had a running lease registered to John George Wamala Mulindwa for a term of 49 years with effect from 1969 and that he enjoys the right of first option to renew the said lease in accordance with the laws and policies of the Applicant. 
That the consent judgment was entered in total disregard to the law and policy which renders the same unenforceable. Finally, that the Applicant has a good viable defence to the respondent’s main suit and that he Applicant is interested in being heard.
“In rejoinder, the Applicant maintains that the he has never entered into any consent with the respondent and that it was wrongly executed by a person who at the material time was not a holder of Powers of Attorney to bind the Applicant.  That the signature purporting to be of the Applicant on the consent does not belong to the Applicant nor to his lawful attorneys and that the signatures of the Applicant is that contained on the Powers of Attorney so attached.” Reads the ruling.
It continues to say, “The Applicant only learnt of the consent judgment when he was served with the respondent’s application for execution and notice to show cause why the execution should not issue against him and as such, that the application is not an after-thought.”
“From the record, there was no agreement between the parties on what was signed, though the respondent submits that the Applicant’s lawyer was duly instructed, this instruction covered only representation as provided by Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, signing of consent is to be done by the parties or persons authorized to do the same. The consent judgment is hereby set-aside, as prayed.” Reads Justice Kawesa ruling which exposed lawyer Barnabas Ndawula’s fraud!

The fact that his services were no longer wanted at Mengo, sources told us that he did not stop moving around claiming to still be their employee to the extent of attending BLB court cases.
He appeared before court as Head Legal at BLB and gave evidence pinning BLB despite having left the organization for close to two years.
BLB said, during his 3-year stint as the Head Legal, Ndawula created catalogue of misdemeanors that always left him at loggerheads with his former bosses.
For instance, there was a time when he went to court as serving officer in BLB and squashed the organization’s surveyors report, calling it ‘hopeless’.
At another instance, he contradicted the BLB MDs statement in the middle of court. He was asked to formally write an apology to the MD for his actions.



CIVIL SUIT NO. 557 of 2014

2.KAMAL LALANI————————————————————————–PLAINTIFFS


2.WYCLIFF KALEMA——————————————————————-DEFENDANTS

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya

The Plaintiffs, Zee Properties Ltd and Mr. Kemal Lalani brought this suit against the Defendants jointly and severally seeking the remedies below:
a) A declaration that the land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23 (herein referred to as the suit land) belongs to the Plaintiffs.
b) The Defendants and/or their agents or any person claiming under them be restrained from interfering with the quiet possession of the suit land.
c) The illegal structures be demolished at the expense of the Defendants.
d) Punitive damages.
e) General damages. 
f) Interest of 25% on (d) and (e) from the date of filing the suit.
g) Costs of the suit.

The Plaintiffs are the undisputed registered proprietors of the suit land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23. To be specific they hold a leasehold interest, by way of purchase, over the land. Their landlord is His Royal Highness the Kabaka of Buganda. Around December 2006, they were approached by the vendor Mr. Sunder Kaka who was interested in selling his interest to the Plaintiffs. 
On 18th January 2007 the Kabaka, through his lawful Attorneys; Mr. Apollo Nelson Makubuya and A.B.K 
Ntale granted Mr. Kaka the consent, Exb. P.1, to transfer the property into the names of the Plaintiffs. This consent was copied to the Commissioner for Land Registration at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development.
Prior to the transfer of the land by Mr. Kaka to the Plaintiffs, the 1st Plaintiff’s Director, Mr. Daudani, made several visits to the suit land and was able to ascertain that there was no development on the land. And further, as Director and/or Shareholder of the 1st Plaintiff, he carried out a search at the Land Registry offices and ascertained that the land was free from any encumbrances.
Following the due diligence conducted and after all the necessary consents were obtained, the Plaintiffs paid full consideration for the suit land which was transferred to them in accordance with the memorandum of sale. The Plaintiffs obtained the certificate of title to the suit land, free of any encumbrances and thereafter the 1st Plaintiff’s Director started to mobilize financial resources to develop it.
In or around late July 2014, the 1st Plaintiff’s Director was surprised, when during their routine visits, they found the Defendants developing the suit land without any colour of 
right. They immediately instructed their lawyers M/s Katuntu & Co. Advocates to demand that the Defendants stop their illegal actions on the suit which both Defendants declined to do. 
The Defendants continued day and night to construct an illegal structure, without an approved plan, which is going to be very expensive on the part of the Plaintiffs to demolish. A copy of a survey report, a letter from KCCA and a Physical Planning Enforcement Notice from Wakiso District Local Government confirming the existence of the developments on the suit land was admitted into evidence.
The 1st Plaintiff’s Director testified that through their lawyers they wrote and sought the intervention of the Kabaka of Buganda on whether they had knowledge of the Defendants to which they confirmed that the Defendants are trespassers and have no claim of right.
Mr. Kemal Lalani, the 2nd Plaintiff, added that he spoke to several neighbours who knew Mr. Kaka very well and they had no objection whatsoever to their purchase of the land,but unfortunately Mr. Kaka passed away in or about July 2013.
To prove the nature and duration of their lease, the Plaintiffs relied on the evidence of Mr. Ndawula Barnabas, the former Head Legal Department of Buganda Land Board. He commissioned a report on the extension of a lease for the Plaintiffs on the suit land upon which he made several findings. The suit land was originally in the name of Kaka Sunder, who opened up files with Buganda Land on 4th September 1998, having acquired a 3-year lease from Kampala City Council on 1st October 1992.
A lease extension for a period of five years was offered to Mr. Kaka and it further was extended on the 1st March 2006, for a period of 10 years, with effect from 1st October 

On the18th January 2007, Buganda Land Board consented to transfer the land from Mr. Kaka to the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, a 10- year lease extension was offered to the Plaintiffs with effect from 2010. Mr. Ndawula therefore confirmed that the Plaintiffs own a lease with Buganda Land Board although other parties had gone ahead to illegally put up developments thereon.
Mr. Mujuni Milton, PW4, testified as a former permanent resident of Badongo Zone, Salama Parish in Makindye Division where the suit land is located. He knew Mr. Kaka 
before he died and that he owned a kibanja in the suit land’s neighbourhood since 1993 which he was in occupation of until 2016. Mr. Mujuni got to know the Plaintiffs around 2007 when Mr. Kaka, introduced them to him as prospective buyers of the suit land. Prior to the introduction he knew that Mr. Kaka owned the land and possessed a title which he later learnt he had sold to the Plaintiffs.
After the introduction of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Kaka stopped his routine inspections of the suit land and they became occasional. Instead, the 2nd Plaintiff made routine inspections of the land which Mr. Mujuni remembered since they spoke to each other sometimes.
Around 2014, Mr. Mujuni saw some people carrying out developments on the suit land after Mr. Kaka’s death. He asked the 2nd Plaintiff if they had sold their land which he denied. He added that the Defendants never talked to him as a neighbour about their purported purchase.
The Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land and their prayer is that this court grants them the remedies as prayed for in the Plaint.

Both Defendants denied all the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Defendants contend that they acquired interest in the suit land from the lawful owner Mr. Walugembe Tadeo, a Kibanja holder, by way of purchase at a consideration of UGX 110,000,000/=. On the 31st March 2014, they paid UGX 90,000,000/= to the vendor. An agreement to that effect was executed and witnessed by both the Area LC.1 Chairman 
and the Mutongole. A copy of the sale agreement, its translation, a receipt from Buganda Land Board and letter from the Kabaka’s agent in relation to the sale were admitted into evidence.
Before they bought the land, they inspected it and ascertained its neighbours. Even the area local council members confirmed that the Kibanja belonged to Mr. Walugembe who had inherited it from his late father, Mr. Maganda Yozefu. The Defendants also visited the 
Kabaka’s area representative (Mutongole), a one Rachel Bulya Kiribata who confirmed the said information. A copy of her letter of appointment, letter of responsibilities and certificate of recognition were admitted into evidence.
The 1st Defendant testified that the kibanja was measured and was found to be 97 feet wide and 178 feet long. It was neighboured by a mango tree on the upper side, Tenywa on the left, Nalongo Kyakuwa on the lower side and on the right side there was an access road.
Thereafter, the Defendants took possession and started developing it. A copy of the approved building plan was admitted into evidence.
The 1st Defendant explained that he is in physical possession of the land with a residential house thereon where he lives with his family. 
On the 31st July 2014, the Defendants received a letter from M/s Katuntu & Co. Advocates claiming criminal trespass to which they responded on 1st August 2014. 
The 2nd Defendant clarified that he relinquished his interest to the 1st Defendant when the latter purchased his share of the Kibanja.
Mr. Kizito Juma Bashir, DW3 testified that he is one of the three people officially appointed by Board resolution to testify on behalf of Buganda Land Board Limited in Court matters. A copy of the board resolution was admitted. He further testified 
that the Plaintiffs are not personally known to him, but that he is aware that they have a land file at Buganda Land Board. He also added that he saw a document from them 
authorising sale by a one Walugembe Tadeo to the Defendants which was issued by their then manager of Makindye.
This was in addition to other documents introducing the Defendants as kibanja holders on the suit land.
It was also his testimony that in a letter dated 28th August 2020, Buganda Land Board responded to a request from Counsel for the Defendants to be availed with the report commissioned by Mr. Ndawula, PW3, in respect of the 1st Plaintiff’s existence on the suit land. In their response, the Board stated that there is no report known to them which was commissioned by PW3 in respect to a lease extension in respect of the 1st Plaintiff on the suit land. 
Furthermore, they stated that as of 14th July 2020, PW3 did not have the authority to represent Buganda Land Board in Court therefore his witness statement did not represent their position. A copy of the request letter and the response were admitted. 
DW3 further explained that the file for Plot 2334 Block 273 from their offices contains documents relating to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. He thus maintained that they both have interests in the land according to their records, a position they made clear to the Criminal Investigations Directorate. This was in a letter dated 7th August 2014 by their manager at the time when requested to during Police investigations of trespass on the said land.
Mr. Mayanja Mutale the elected treasurer LC Badongo Zone, DW4, testified that being a resident of the area since 1992, he knows the Defendants as people who bought a Kibanja from Walugembe Tadeo in 2014 and that Joseph Maganda was the previous 
owner of the Kibanja where the suit land is. He also learnt that the said Maganda had distributed part of his kibanja to his children Walugembe Tadeo and Nakayenga. And as 
one of the local authority officials, he was contacted by the Defendants who were inquiring about Walugembe’s ownership of the kibanja which he confirmed.
DW5, Mr. Lubega Mustafa testified that the 1st Defendant is his neighbour in Kyamula village and that the Plaintiffs are unknown to him. He added that he acquired his kibanja from Kibazo Aloysious on 13th October 2008 who had in turn purchased it from the late Joseph Maganda in 2003. Both copies of the Kibanja sales agreements were tendered into evidence. He explained that his home boarders with the 1st Defendant’s home and in 2014, he saw the 1st Defendant developing 
it with a residential house.
The Defendants therefore prayed that the court dismiss the suit with costs.
The following issues were formulated for Court’s consideration.


  1. Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
  2. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?  


Issue 1
Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
In the case of Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company SCCA No. 11 of 2002, Mulenga, JSC held;
‘Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land, and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person’s lawful possession of that land. Needless to say, the tort of trespass to land is committed, not against the land, but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land. At common law, the cardinal rule is that only a person in possession of the land has capacity to sue in trespass. Thus, the owner of an unencumbered land has such capacity to sue, but a landowner who grants a lease of his land, does not have the capacity to sue, because he parts with possession of the land. During the subsistence of the lease, it is the lessee in possession, who has the capacity to sue in respect of trespass to that land.’
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiffs are registered lessees of the suit property with an uncontested title obtained in 2010 for 10 years and extended for another term for 20 years in 2020. The Statutory Consent was duly obtained from the Kabaka through his lawful attorneys to wit, A.B K Ntale and A.N Makubuya. The ownership of the Kabaka is not in dispute. The defendants’ case is that they acquired a ‘kibanja’ in 2014. 
This was eight (8) years after the registered lessees (plaintiffs) had acquired title.
According to Counsel for the Plaintiff, the occupancy and purported acquisition of the ‘kibanja’ in 2014 was contrary to sections 29 and 34 of the Land Act Cap 227. Section 25 29 of the Land Act defines lawful occupants to include a person who enters the land with the consent of the registered owner and section 34 provides for the prescribed mode of the transaction. 
Counsel for Defendant submitted that the requisite consent was obtained by the Defendants from the Kabaka’s representatives as demonstrated by the ‘Ebbaluwa Entongole’/ Sale Agreement dated 31st March 2014, Exb. D2. Counsel acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ interest in the suit property but maintained that it was subject to the Defendants’ interest in the land.
The facts and evidence before me reveal that the Defendants entered into the transaction with the untraceable Walugembe Tadewo on the 31st March 2014 when the Plaintiffs were the registered proprietors on the suit land as lessees thereof. A quick search of the registry could have established that, as the 1st Defendant admitted. It was not a secret but a public fact that at the material time, HRH the Kabaka had parted with the possession of suit land. The Plaintiffs were therefore the only persons from whom the elusive Walugembe Tadewo and the Defendants could have obtained consent to enter into a transaction for the sale of the suit land. No such consent was sought or given, making the Defendants nothing but trespassers within the meaning of the law.
Further, the available evidence adduced by the Defendants demonstrates that they paid UGX 110,000,000/= for the suit land. And yet Exb. D.2 clearly states that a sum of UGX 50,000,000/= was received by the vendor, being the purchase price. I do not believe at all that the 1st Defendant made a mistake in writing the amount as he claimed under cross examination. Documentary evidence is far more difficult to tamper with than oral evidence which can change at any time depending on the motives of the witnesses.
The 1st Plaintiff’s Director described the Defendants act of purchase and swift development of the suit land as illegal, wanton and callous and I must agree. Issue 1 is resolved in the affirmative. 

Issue 2
Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?
It is my view that the circumstances of this suit dictate that the Plaintiffs be granted all remedies sought. I hardly award punitive damages but I find them justified in this matter. 
The Defendants, as officers of court were in the best position to do the right thing after acquainting themselves with the undeniable position of the law but they chose to drag this matter along for several years. However, it is the 1st Defendant who has been at the forefront. He stubbornly maintained a stance steeped in illegality by living with his family on land he admits was illicitly acquired. The house they now call home should never have been built since the 1st Defendant did not own the land and he knew it. I award a sum of UGX 100,000,000/= in punitive damages to be singularly borne by the 1st Defendant.
Turning to the prayer for general damages, I take into consideration the grave inconvenience occasioned to the Plaintiffs, since 2014 and I award a sum of UGX 200,000,000/= to be borne by the Defendants jointly.
In conclusion, I enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and order as follows;

  1. A declaration that the land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23 (herein referred to as the suit land) belongs to the Plaintiffs.
  2. The Defendants and/or their agents or any person claiming under them be restrained from interfering with the quiet possession of the suit land.
  3. All illegal structures on the suit land to be demolished at the expense of the Defendants.
  4. Punitive damages of UGX 100,000,000/= to be borne by the 1st Defendant.
  5. General damages of UGX 200,000,000/= to be borne by both Defendants.
  6. Interest of 15% on (4) and (5) from the date of filing the suit to payment in full.
  7. Costs of the suit.

Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya
On the 30 January 2023

WAIT FOR PART II: For views/comments on this story, send an email to newseditor.info@gmail.com


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here