Gen Kyaligonza, firm in land fight

An engineering company has sued Maj Gen Matayo Kyaligonza, Uganda’s ambassador to Burundi, for alleged trespass and takeover of its premises in Kawempe Division, Kampala.
The case, before the Land Division of the High Court, was filed in May.

Kayokamu Engineering Limited accuses Gen Kyaligonza jointly with the registrar of titles and the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board of depriving it of property worth more than Shs700m.
The company also alleges that Gen Kyaligonza, without rightful claim, entered and trespassed onto the property and took it in 1987.

“After the said [Bush] war ended and relative peace returned in 1987, the plaintiff endeavoured to reclaim their property through their lawyers but the same efforts were turned down on several occasions by the first and second defendants (Kyaligonza and Registrar of Titles),” the suit documents read in part.

Gen Kyaligonza was part of the National Resistance Army rebel commanders who captured power in 1986 after a five-year guerrilla war.
According to the suit, in 1990, Gen Kyaligonza defied summons by the local leadership to have the matter settled amicably.

It is alleged that the company acquired the land in the 1980s from Mr Charles Kayondo, who had bought it from Prince Badru Kakungulu.
However, the company business was rendered inoperative due to political instability at that time, which forced the managers to abandon it.

“Sometime in 2000, the defendant returned and deployed military police who removed the plaintiff’s building materials that had been put to the suit property in anticipation of immediate construction hence suffered general damages,” the suit documents add.

The company is seeking a court order to evict Gen Kyaligonza from the contested land and declare it vacant, to remove a caveat issued by the registrar of titles and order the accused to pay profits for the time they have been deprived of the land.
Gen Kyaligonza denied any wrongdoing, saying the company’s title is tainted with illegalities and fraud because it resulted from an illegal subdivision of an expropriated property.

Through his lawyers, the defendant contends that he did not enter the disputed land as a trespasser, and admits that he rejected the company’s attempt to reclaim it.
“The first defendant (Kyaligonza) claims interest in the suit land by adverse possession and or prescription insofar as he has been in possession thereof adversely sinc e 2000 to date undisturbed by the plaintiff which he is going to enforce herein by counterclaim,” Gen Kyaligonza states.

He describes himself as an allocatee of expropriated property, which the contested land is part of, adding that the claim by the company is misconceived and unsustainable.
Meanwhile, the case has been referred for mediation, an alternative dispute mechanism to resolve the matter without litigation.

[email protected]