Court registrar under fire over Busamba land dispute

A decision by the deputy registrar of Makindye Family Division of the High Court, Mr Samuel Olumo to dismiss a critical application intending to amend the main Case of the Busamba land dispute has sparked outrage with family members and residents saying it’s not only unfair but also points at injustices.

A Miscellaneous Application number 948 of 2023, intending to add 30 respondents including a land dealer a one Berna Nakato and other Bibanja holders who shared the land of the late Gabduyeri Lubajja on the main suit number 8 of 2023, was on Friday dismissed by Mr Olumo on grounds the applicants said were not only extremely weak, but also unrealistic.

Ms Josephine Mpamulungi and Teddy Namusoke in the main suit are battling with Richard Semitala and Eustarious Ssegantebuka, the purported administrators of the late Gabudyeri Lubajja’s Estate in Court, whom they are accusing of reportedly fraudulently processing letters of administration (Number 77 of 2010) and bring Ms Nakato on the 1,044 Namayumba based land in Wakiso district.

Nakato came on the land as a surveyor and she was paid by the administrators’ 150 acres of this land as her salary for her services before she acquired an additional 50 acres, raising her stake to 200 acres.
Over 5,000 residents, majority Bibanja holders who have for the past 30 years peacefully lived on the three villages of Busamba, Kanziro and Ngondwe found on this land have been trapped in the battle which one time almost got them evicted.

The Misc Application 948 of 2023, which Mr Olumo dismissed on Friday was aimed at adding Ms Nakato and 27 other Bonafide Occupants (Bibanja holders) who shared late Lubajja’s land amidst the ongoing legal battle between family members.

Ms Josephine Mpamulungi, the main applicant was on Friday dumbfounded when the registrar said that the signature she used on the Application is slightly different from the one she signed on the paper during the cross-examination, making her Application to lack legal backing.

“The 1st applicant (Mpamulungi) affirmed that she was the one who signed the affidavit in support of the application. She was subsequently asked to provide a sample of her signatures, which was entered into the court record as Exhibit D,” reads part of the ruling seen by this publication.
“When questioned about the disparity between the signatures on the affidavit in support and the samples on record, she attributed it to her illness……Court will [therefore] independently draw its own conclusions in this matter,” it adds.

As he said, Mr Olumo used his own eyes, without engaging a handwriting expert to dismiss the Application, informing Ms Mpamulungi, that some letters in her signatures were not the size, dismissing her case with an advice to file a fresh application with proper signature or appeal his ruling.

“I have had the opportunity to meticulously scrutinize the three signature samples provided by the Applicant on Exhibit "D", closely comparing them with the signatures on the affidavit supporting the application, the affidavit supporting the caveat and the affidavit in rejoinder…….the signature samples are not entirely identical due to various factors such as size, character combination, letter positions, relative,” he said.

Reacting to this Ms Mpamulungi said that, “This is ridiculous,”
The disgruntled grand-daughter of the late Lubajja added that, “This is the same signature I have been using since my primary seven, it is surprising that because some letters are differing in sizes, can be a basis of dismissing our Application,”

To dive deep into Olumo’s ruling, he further said that, more differences are seen in spacing between characters, the spontaneity of the person writing leading to variations in stroke order, and the use of different pens, among others.
The depiction of the letter “E” in the sample signatures of Exhibit (D) remains consistent. However, it is worth noting that while the method of drawing the letter is uniform and similar across all samples, the only variation lies in the size of the letter E.

He also contested the letter “H” whose structure, he said, maintains consistency but differs in sizes. The same applied to letter “S”
“When comparing the three signature samples in Exhibit "D" with that on the affidavit supporting the application, specific stand-alone letters are used for clarity in noting variations and similarities. These letters include E, H, S, and N,” he said.

Government intervention towards solving this impasse has since last year gained no good result.

In December 2022, the Minister of Land, Housing and Urban Development stopped all activities on this land. Her orders were defied which prompted her to hold a security meeting on May 21, 2023 after discovering that Nakato had connived with some Bibanja holders, subdivided and shared part of the land.

Ms Mpamulungi and other disgruntled family members were in June forced to file for an Application intending to add Ms Nakato and other Bibanja holders on the main Suit, after realizing that they had continued with their activities.

“By the time we filed the first case, Nakato was not in the picture but after her getting the land where 150 acres was given to her as her salary for the surveying work before she acquired additional 50 acres and the fact that she was threatening locals, we filed this case to ensure that she and other people she connived with to commit crime are added on the suit,” Mr Mathias Mulumba, one of the family members and lawyer said.

Since they filed the Application in June, the frustrated family members say this registrar has been frustrating them by repeatedly postponing their case despite them presenting all evidence,” he added.

In the Friday ruling, Mr. Olumo said the discrepancies in Ms Mpamulungi’s handwriting makes the Application null and void.
“It is a well-established legal principle that the verification of handwriting can be accomplished through the testimony of an expert witness or by a person familiar with the author's handwriting. Nevertheless, a court, as the ultimate authority, retains the discretion to render findings on handwriting even in the absence of an expert opinion,”

Despite Ms Mpamulungi appearing before the same court to testify that it was indeed her handwriting, Mr Olumo did not put into practice Section 69 of the Evidence Act that would make Mpamulungi’s application void.
The section states that, “The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself or herself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him or her…...”

Mr Mulumba said that they explained and argued with this Act but Mr Olumo chose to ignore them, “over reasons based known to him”
“I am here wondering when justice will ever prevail in this country. We are highly disappointed in this Registrar,” he said.