Court of Appeal overturns orders for Kabaka to produce land bank account statements

The Court of Appeal has overturned an order requesting the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi to produce bank statements of all the money that the kingdom has collected from people living on its land.

Last year, High Court’s Justice Patricia Basaza ordered the Kabaka to present all particulars in regards the kingdom’s accounts in Stanbic bank(Forest Mall Branch)and Bank of Africa (Main Branch) in the names of Buganda Land Board and the kingdom’s mailo land returned by the central government to city lawyer Male Mabirizi who  is challenging the decision to have  all his subjects living on the kingdom land  register their plots at a fee.

The Kabaka later took to the Court of Appeal to appeal against the order

On Monday, three justices including Ezekiel Muhanguzi, Fredrick Egonda Ntende and Hellen Obura in a judgment read by the court’s deputy registrar Agnes Nkonge ruled that the orders to Kabaka were done erroneously by the High Court.

“The appellant (Kabaka) is not a government or public authority who wields governmental powers and in acting out of the actions complained of(by Mabirizi), there is no assertion that he is exercising governmental authority,”ruled the judges.

The judges ruled that since the matter does not qualify as a public law action, it cannot be maintained and therefore the application for disclosure and inspection cannot be necessary.

In his application, Mabirizi contended that he represents himself and the people from Buganda living on the official mailo land but in Monday’s ruling, the judges dismissed it.

They said that there is no proof to show that Mabirizi was acting on behalf of people from Buganda because he had not mentioned any of them.

“The action on behalf of other persons who are not named and whose consent has not been obtained is a representative action and is unlawful,” the judges contended.

“Courts cannot exercise their discretion to grant orders for discovery on oath and inspection when the main suit is not maintainable in law.”

The court also ruled that in case Mabirizi wants the particulars declared to him, he should use the usual procedure by going through the land registry.

Speaking shortly after the ruling, Kabaka’s lawyer in the case, Christopher Bwanika said at last justice had prevailed.

“We are happy the court has accorded justice to the Kabaka of Buganda because it realized the main case is not likely to be sustained,”Bwanika said.

Mabirizi runs to Supreme Court

Shortly after the court deputy registrar read the judgment, Mabirizi told her he was not satisfied with the outcome of the case.

‘I am not satisfied by the peculiar judgment and I am soon taking steps to have it reversed by the Supreme Court through an appeal,” he said.

Speaking to journalists later, the city lawyer said he was surprised by what transpired because the court didn’t decide the case brought to it.

“In law, you can’t determine a matter you have not heard. We were here on case for discovery and declaration by the Kabaka but the judges heard and ruled on another case,”Mabirizi said.

He noted that the three justices of the court of appeal instead heard and determined the main case at High Court yet theirs was to determine fate of an order to the Kabaka on disclosing bank accounts.

“Their reasons were arm-twisted and laughable. I am going to appeal.”

Case

In his main case in the High Court which , Mabirizi argues  that asking people register afresh at a fee ranging between Shs100,000 and Shs600,000 depending on the location of the land was an infringement on people’s right to property.

Mabirizi said that some of the land was returned by the central government and is public land collectively owned by the people of Buganda.

He asked court to stop the Kabaka from registering people through Buganda Land Board at a fee before asking for orders to have money collected from tenants on the land refunded .

In defence, the Kabaka through  Buganda Land Board says he  equally has a right to own property and in exercising his right, he  has never deprived any person of any interest or right over the property of any description and  neither does he have any intention to do so.