Why forest reserve titles must be reviewed
The review of titles overlapping forest reserves is about upholding the law while protecting legitimate landowners, writes Baker Mugaino
Baker Mugaino. (Courtesy)
____________
OPINION
By Baker Mugaino
Uganda’s land register remains credible only when certificates of title are protected, lawful and corrected where they cover land held in trust for the public. To many Ugandans, a certificate of title is the final word on land ownership. It is the document families rely on when buying land; banks rely on when lending money, and investors rely on when planning development.
But the current review of titles, reported to overlap gazetted forest reserves, should be understood in its proper context. It is not a general attack on ownership, nor is it a declaration that every affected title is invalid.
These forests protect water catchments, biodiversity, climate resilience and livelihoods, and their loss affects not only the surrounding communities, but also the country. My office has summoned more than 260 registered proprietors and other interested persons concerning titles reported to cover approximately 11,825 acres in central Uganda. Others are in Masaka and Mpigi areas. The hearings at the ministry zonal office are meant to answer practical questions: Where does each surveyed parcel lie? How was each title obtained, what official approvals were relied on and whether the register should remain unchanged, be corrected or cancelled.
The review will be guided by evidence, including gazettement records, official reserve boundaries, survey data, title history, and the documents presented by the affected parties. The story behind these titles is likely to be complex. Some people may have bought in good faith. Some may have relied on district approvals, survey records, or previous transactions. Some titles may fall outside the reserve boundaries once the technical evidence is examined. Others may overlap protected land wholly or in part. That is why the process must be fair, but fairness cannot mean leaving an unlawful entry on the register once the facts and the law are clear.
Official titles on protected land
If the gazetted forest boundary is not checked at each stage, a serious error can move through the system as if everything is regular. A local file may show occupation, cultivation, or development. A community may believe the land is available. A buyer may see official signatures and assume the land is safe. Yet, none of those facts can override the legal status of land already reserved as a forest reserve.
This is why the current exercise must examine both individual documents and institutional conduct. It would be unfair to treat every registered proprietor as if he or she personally caused the problem. It would also be wrong to pretend that a title is valid merely because it passed through official hands without the required boundary and legal checks.
Law on correction of register
Uganda’s Constitution places forest reserves and other ecologically important resources under the Government or local government to be held in trust for the people. The Land Act protects those resources from being leased or, otherwise, alienated as ordinary land. In simple terms, a gazetted forest reserve is not available for private ownership merely because someone occupies it or because an official file describes it as vacant.
Where land had already been lawfully reserved, a later certificate of title cannot defeat that earlier legal status unless the reserve was first degazetted through the proper statutory process. Degazettement is not silence, tolerance or informal approval. It is a formal legal act. With it, public-trust land remains protected.
The registrar of titles, therefore, has a duty to act where evidence shows that the register contains an entry that was issued in error, carries a wrong boundary or description, or was illegally or wrongfully obtained or retained. Correcting the register is not a punishment. It is the legal way of restoring the register to what the law permits.
Why fairness still matters
Fairness also means recognising that the outcome may differ from parcel to parcel. A title outside the gazetted forest reserve should be protected. A parcel that overlaps only in part may require boundary correction. A title wholly inside a reserve may require cancellation if the land was never lawfully available for private ownership. Each decision must follow the evidence.
During the inquiry, proprietors should avoid selling, subdividing, mortgaging, or developing the disputed land. A transaction cannot cure an underlying defect in title, and continued activity may create further disputes. Those who bought in good faith may have claims against sellers or intermediaries, but such claims cannot determine whether forest reserve land should remain privately registered.
Prevent the problem
The correction of individual titles is only part of the task. We must also prevent the same error from recurring. Every gazetted forest reserve boundary should be loaded into the Uganda National Land Information System as a hard constraint. Any proposed survey that neighbours a reserve or its buffer should require written forestry clearance before approval.
District land boards, area land committees, surveyors, physical planners and registry officers must work from the same reliable spatial record. They must also be trained to ensure that land which appears vacant is not necessarily available for allocation. The deeper lesson is that public trust in the land register depends on accuracy as much as finality. A register that cannot be corrected when it records what the law does not allow will eventually lose the confidence it is meant to command. Correcting unlawful entries protects rather than weakens the credibility of genuine titles.
The message is, therefore, clear. Title holders should come forward with their records. Public officers should apply the forest boundary before any allocation, survey or registration is approved. Prospective buyers should verify land near protected areas before paying for it.
Where a title is lawful, it should be protected. Where it rests on land that was never available for private ownership, the register must be corrected. That is how we can protect our forests, preserve the value of certificates of title and restore public confidence in land administration.
The writer is a commissioner of land registration in the lands ministry