The Justice of the High Court Michael Elumbu on Monday issued his ruling in a land row involving Permanent Secretary Pius Bigirimana and Uganda Lands Commission (ULC)
Last year Bigirimana dragged ULC Court for allegedly failing to pay a balance of Shs 300m for sale proceeds.
Bigirimana claimed that he sold his land comprised in Block 103, plot 5 at Bulemezi, Nakabito, and Nakigozi in Luwero district to the commission at a price of Shs504M
He further stated he forwarded to the accounting officer all that was required of him to have his money paid and among these include the original certificate of title for the subject land, duly signed transfer forms, details of his account and TIN number.
“My case is aggravated by the fact that I was given a price determined by the chief government valuer but even then I have been denied room to enjoy the proceeds of the sale of my property with the commission’s secretary cum accounting officer of the land fund paying me by way of installments without my consent,” Bigirimana states in the court documents.
In passing the judgment, high court Justice Elumbu considered the following discrepancies
- Whether the accounting officer has latitude to selectively pay the claimant in installments and at intervals of his choosing
- Whether the sale proceeds due to the vendor ought to be recovered from the purchaser forthwith or within timelines set by the court
- Whether the overdue proceedings ought to be recovered with interest to the vendor until full payment is made.
- Whether the vendor merits costs attendant to the proceedings
- Whether a consequential order doth issue to the vendor to attach the accounts of the purchaser for the recovery of the overdue sale proceeds, interests thereon and costs of the suit.
Notably though, the court has gone ahead to deliberate on the matter despite the lack of reply to the allegations from the accused.
“After preliminary hearing of this matter, the purchaser was summoned to put in a record shows that several adjournments were granted to enable him appear. Then representation from the purchaser, despite effective service of him, the court dire be heard expert,” part of the ruling reads.
On the pertinent issue of installments, Elumbu notes that it is impossible to rule or and conditions of the payment were not clearly defined in the agreement.
The court however dismisses the lackluster mode of payment at the end of this financial year (30th June, 2020).
The court further rules that vendor is entitled to a certain portion since the land payments are not yet completed rendering the land in question Court once deemed reasonable.