Education

ISBAT University dismisses eviction rumors

“Plot 11, Rotary Drive, where we sit as the main campus, is not in contention before any government agency, and its title has not been canceled,” Tumukunde told reporters.“The university has been here since its inception. No one has ever questioned its ownership — either directly or indirectly. There is no contest on this land.”

The university urged students, parents, staff, and the general public to disregard the eviction rumors, assuring them that its main campus operations remain stable and secure.
By: John Masaba, Journalists @New Vision


KAMPALA - ISBAT University has dismissed “misguided and misinformed” media reports suggesting the institution is facing eviction from its main campus in Kampala.

The main campus is located on Plot 11, Rotary Drive at Lugogo Bypass.

At a press conference on Friday (December 5), university officials clarified that the land on which the campus sits is not under dispute and that its title remains intact.

Tony Tumukunde, a lawyer representing ISBAT University, said an article published by one online news outlet claiming the university “could soon be evicted” from its main campus was factually incorrect.

“Plot 11, Rotary Drive, where we sit as the main campus, is not in contention before any government agency, and its title has not been canceled,” Tumukunde told reporters.
“The university has been here since its inception. No one has ever questioned its ownership — either directly or indirectly. There is no contest on this land.”

Tumukunde explained that the confusion may have arisen from a separate legal matter involving Plot 54, Naguru Drive.

The institution is currently involved in a court dispute with a Muslim community group that allegedly attempted to cancel the university’s title for their other property located in Naguru without notifying it. The cancellation was later challenged in court.

“The university is in court over Plot 54 Naguru Drive, not Plot 11 Lugogo Bypass,” said Tumukunde. 

“The group that first sued the Attorney General did so without involving the university. Their case has since been dismissed. The matter involving the university is still pending before court, and we cannot comment on its details.”

The lawyer said ISBAT University has filed its own case against the same group and a woman identified as Anita over the disputed cancellation of the Naguru title.

“That matter is before court and pending hearing and ruling. We shall leave it to court,” said Tumukunde, noting that the university cannot discuss specifics of an active case.

The university urged students, parents, staff, and the general public to disregard the eviction rumors, assuring them that its main campus operations remain stable and secure.

“The university will always uphold the rule of law. We cannot sit back and allow the public to be misinformed,” the administration said, pledging to continue clarifying any misleading reports.

Tony Tumukunde (L), a lawyer representing ISBAT University, said an article published by one online news outlet claiming the university “could soon be evicted” from its main campus was factually incorrect.

Tony Tumukunde (L), a lawyer representing ISBAT University, said an article published by one online news outlet claiming the university “could soon be evicted” from its main campus was factually incorrect.



Court documents

According to documents seen by the New Vision, the High Court recently dismissed an application by Misbahu Din Muslim Community Ltd and Hanifa Nabuuma, who had sought judicial review of directives allegedly issued by the Minister of State for Lands concerning land in Naguru. 

The applicants accused the minister of illegally directing the cancellation of their titles and sought declarations, certiorari, prohibition, and damages.

The Attorney General opposed the application, arguing it was filed nearly nine years after the events, involved land ownership issues more suited for civil litigation, and that the minister had not acted unlawfully.

Justice Joyce Kavuma ruled on November 28, 2025 that the application was premature and not amenable to judicial review. 

The letter in question had been addressed only to a senior presidential advisor and not to the Commissioner for Land Registration — the only official legally empowered under Section 88 of the Land Act to cancel or rectify titles. 

The directives had not been implemented, and the applicants remained in peaceful possession of the land.

The court found the dispute speculative and unsuitable for judicial review, dismissing the application with no order as to costs.
Tags:
Education
ISBAT University
Eviction