KATAKWI — A long-running dispute over ownership of a large piece of land in Okore Sub-county, Katakwi District, has taken a new turn after local leaders accused private individuals of taking over communal land, while sources close to the registered proprietors claimed the matter has been heavily politicised.
The dispute returned to court on Tuesday, where residents who claim ownership of the land had expected a hearing. However, they were informed that the case file was not yet ready.
Residents and local leaders from Okore maintain that the contested land is communal property belonging to thousands of families. On the other hand, a source familiar with the case insists the ownership was lawfully acquired and that political interests have complicated the dispute.
Speaking after the court session, Okore Sub-county LCIII Chairperson Charles Ikabaat alleged that some individuals took advantage of residents who had fled insecurity during past insurgencies to acquire ownership of the land.
"We were displaced because of insecurity and while people were in camps, some individuals surveyed our land and later transferred the title. This is communal land that belongs to our people," Ikabaat said.
He alleged that the land title was transferred in 2021 to Imede Kevin, the mother of businessman Calvin Echodu.
Ikabaat also questioned the legitimacy of the transaction, saying the court had directed respondents to provide documentary evidence, including details of how the land was acquired and the consideration paid.
According to community members, about 3,000 families depend on the disputed land for farming, livestock grazing and other livelihood activities.
One resident claimed the contested area covers nearly half of Okore Sub-county and warned that losing it would have severe consequences for local communities.
"This is the only asset our people have. We use it for agriculture and livestock keeping. If we lose this land, where will these families go?" the resident asked.
Residents say they have previously sought intervention from various government institutions, including the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, but maintain that the matter remains unresolved.
However, a source linked to Echodu's camp rejected allegations of land grabbing and described the dispute as politically driven.
The source told this publication that investigations by anti-corruption agencies had failed to establish claims that 3,000 families were displaced from the land.
"The major challenge has always been proving who exactly these 3,000 claimants are and where they previously lived. Investigators repeatedly asked for evidence and names of the alleged occupants," the source said.
The source further alleged that court orders required each claimant to file an individual affidavit, but only a small number reportedly complied.
According to the source, historical records and maps from the Ministry of Lands indicate that there have been no settlements on the disputed land for several decades.
The source also defended the reinstatement of the land title in Imede Kevin's name, arguing that an earlier cancellation was overturned because due process had not been followed.
"The title was reinstated because a public hearing that led to its cancellation was conducted without involving the registered proprietors or their lawyers," the source said.
The source further alleged that some political actors were exploiting the dispute for political gain, claims that could not be independently verified.
The case has emerged as one of the most contentious land disputes in the Teso sub-region, with both sides accusing each other of misinformation and manipulation.
As the matter continues before court, residents say they remain determined to reclaim what they describe as ancestral communal land, while those defending the title maintain confidence that the legal process will ultimately affirm ownership.
The next hearing is expected to focus on documentary evidence and the competing claims surrounding ownership of the land.
Several allegations made by both parties remain before court and have not been independently verified. The matter is therefore sub judice and no conclusion should be drawn until a final court determination is made.
