MP Nsereko denies selling road reserve land
On the spot. Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko. FILE PHOTO
Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko has denied allegations of illegally and unlawfully creating a title in respect of a gazetted road on a freehold land known as plot 8 Bat Valley Crescent Kampala.
Last month, Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust sued Mr Nsereko and Kampala District Land Board in the High Court Commercial Division. According to the wildlife conservation agency, they suffered a loss (which they seek to recover) when Mr Nsereko sold them a piece of land well knowing it was gazetted road.
Particulars of the suit state that on April 4, 2014, the agency entered into a sale agreement with Mr Nsereko for the land for Shs800m, which was paid in full with an assurance that the land was free from any latent defects or any reason that could prevent it from being developed.
However, the wildlife conservation trust states that when it applied to Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) for permit to develop the land, the permission was denied on August 5, 2015 on grounds that there was a planned and an existing road on ground.
Response
In his defence, Mr Nsereko asserts that he sold the suit land to the agency on rather the same conditions and in the same state as he had acquired from Kikonyongo Investments Limited and that the plaintiff were aware of the conditions relating to the transaction in the agreement.
“As clearly shown on the certificate of the title for the suit land, the user thereof is for residential and commercial purposes and allegations of the same being a road are therefore irrational…,” Mr Nsereko’s written statement of defence reads in part.
“The 1st defendant (Mr Nsereko) fully discharged his obligations when the certificate of the title was issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff from the attachments to its pleadings was fully responsible for the direct transfer of the title from Kikonyongo Investments Limited into its names,” Mr Nsereko further states in defence.
He also noted that the actions complained of as contributing to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to develop the land do not relate to the authenticity of the title but rather technical approvals which are within the plaintiff’s ability to seek and obtain.
He says that suit claim is misdirected to him, it should instead have been addressed to KCCA and the 2nd defendant since it is the custodian of government land in the city.
Mr Nsereko also noted that all expenses allegedly incurred by the plaintiff towards the acquisition of the title to the suit land were lawfully incurred and were indeed necessarily for the plaintiff’s acquisition of the certificate of the title for its lease.
“The fact that the plaintiff acquired title to the land on 4th June, 2014 makes the present claim an afterthought,” He added.
