Compulsory land acquisition illegal — Court

LANDMARK RULING 

KAMPALA - In a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court has nullified a key provision of the Land Acquisition Act, requiring the Government to fully resolve compensation disputes before acquiring private land for public projects, marking a major shift in land rights enforcement, write Vision Reporters.

The Constitutional Court has nullified Section 10(5) (c) of the Land Acquisition Act, which previously allowed the Government to compulsorily acquire land and commence public projects before resolving compensation disputes in court. 

The judgment means that going forward, the Government must first settle all compensation-related cases before taking possession of private land for any development project, including roads and other infrastructure. 

This judgment, which analysts say will have significant implications for how public projects are implemented, was delivered on April 8, 2025. 

In a unanimous decision, a five-member panel of justices led by Moses Kazibwe Kawumi ruled that Section 10(5)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act is unconstitutional because the law stipulates that compensation must be paid before land is acquired. 

“Section 10(5)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows for possession before a dispute referred to court by the Attorney General is fully determined and compensation is paid, contravening articles 26(2)(b)(i), 26(2) (b)(ii), and 28(1) of the Constitution,” Justice Kawumi ruled. 

Justices Irene Mulyagonja, John Oscar Kihika, Margaret Tibulya and Dr Asa Mugenyi concurred with Justice Kawumi. 

Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution provide for the protection of property and the right to a fair hearing. 

However, the court ruled that Sections 6(5)(a), (b), and (c) of the Land Acquisition Act are consistent with articles 22(1), 26(2)(b), and 28(1) of the Constitution, contrary to what the petitioners had stated. 

The justices explained that Section 6(5)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act pertains to payment of an award into court under conditions deemed appropriate by the court. 

However, it does not require the Attorney General to take possession, which would likely be deemed unconstitutional. 

The court further stated that Section 6(5)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act relates to a situation where an agreed award is refused by the landowner, who did not lodge an appeal under Section 13 of the Act. 

“The payment into court of such an award on application by the Attorney General and on the orders deemed appropriate by the court is not unconstitutional. However, the payment does not mean takeover of the land until court resolves the compensation matter,” Justice Kawumi said. 

The justices added that Section 6(5)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act pertains to circumstances that render it inexpedient, difficult or impossible to make payment. 

The judgment followed a petition filed by Daniel Omara, Advocates for Natural Resources and Development, and Resource Rights Africa Limited against the Attorney General and the defunct Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) in 2021. 

The petitioners argued that the Government continues to invoke Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to obtain court orders for depositing compensation funds and taking possession of land for the Tilenga oil project and the Hoima-Buhimba road construction project, without providing fair and adequate compensation to the affected landowners. 

The justices said taking possession of land before the matter is determined by court, as referred to by the Attorney General, would further infringe upon the right to access a court of law for project-affected individuals, as guaranteed by Article 26(2)(b) of the Constitution. 

The justices explained that articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution, along with Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, guarantee the right to access the court for all parties involved in the land acquisition process, not just the Attorney General.

Need for revised law 

The justices emphasised the need for new legislation that aligns with current social and economic conditions, as well as the constitutional framework. 

“We need to enact a suitable law to suit the changed social and economic circumstances and the existing constitutional regime,” Justice Kawumi said. 

The justices added that sections 75 and 77 of the Land Act fall short of constitutional requirements, which mandate prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation before the Government takes possession of compulsorily acquired land. 

The sections refer to the composition and functions of district land tribunals, which assess the compensation amount. 

They added that the Land Acquisition Act was enacted in 1965, under a different constitutional framework (the independence Constitution), which was later replaced by the 1966 Constitution and then the 1967 Constitution. 

The justices observed that the country’s social and economic landscapes have since greatly changed, driven by, among other factors, an increase in its population, which calls for an urgent need for land for both private and government infrastructure projects.

The bench added that the country has also witnessed a number of property expropriation exercises including the 1972 expropriation of property belonging to Asians, the Land Reform Decree that declared all land to belong to the state, and the ranch re-structuring scheme in the cattle corridor that saw some ranch owners deprived of portions of their leased estates. 

The justices said Article 25 of the Constitution was enacted with the hindsight of the country’s history of expropriations and that the requirement for taking possession to be preceded by payment of prompt, fair and adequate compensation was not a constitutional requirement in the 1967 Constitution, but only came into force with the 1995 Constitution. 

“The Land Acquisition Act was enacted in 1965 before the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, hence its provisions must be applied to conform to the constitutional imperatives in line with Article 274 of the Constitution,” Justice Kawumi said. 

During the hearing of the petition, Counsel Francis Tumusiime appeared for the petitioners, while senior state attorney Claire Kokunda Nabaasa represented the Attorney General’s Chambers.
 
Lawyer Pecos Mutatiina represented the defunct UNRA.

Experts comment 

The Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, said what the court ruled was very clear, but that they have 14 days within which to make a decision on their next move. 

“We shall first study the judgment, look at its implications, then take a decision,” he said. 

Works state minister Musa Ecweru said the judgment will result in delays that will impact government projects with limited lifespans, many of which are loan-funded. 

“If these projects are not completed on time, the loan agreements may expire, resulting in significant losses for the country. Not only will the project remain undelivered, but the country will still be liable for the agreed-upon interest charges. Every project has a critical time frame, and timely execution is crucial,” he said. 

Ecweru clarified that the Government typically compensates property owners before land acquisition. 

He said the law dictates that land belongs to the people, but the compensation process involves multiple steps and considerations. 

“While challenges exist, the Government is committed to addressing these issues critically,” he said. 

Business mogul and real estate investor Sudhir Ruparelia welcomed the court decision to compensate landowners before taking over the land, saying it is in tandem with the Constitution. 

Makerere University Business School don of corporate sustainability and social responsibility, Prof. David Katamba, welcomed the court ruling requiring the Government to compensate private property owners before taking over their land for development projects. 

Using the Kyaliwajjala–Namugongo and Kyaliwajjala–Kasangati road project as an example, Prof. Katamba said without proper compensation, private businesses along the road, such as hotels, would stall. 

He said this could lead to socio-economic instability, uncertainty in employment, and a decline in government revenues. 

Katamba said the judgement will not only protect property owners, but also prompt the Government to improve its payment mechanisms, potentially reducing domestic debt. 

City lawyer Arnold Kimara explained that the Constitutional Court has underscored the requirement that any person affected by compulsory land acquisition must first receive fair and adequate compensation from the Government before it can take possession of their property. 

Kimara argued that compulsory acquisition of property for projects should be conducted in a constitutional manner. 

He advised the Government to put in place measures and frameworks to expedite compensation of project-affected persons before acquiring their land.

Filed by Michael Odeng, Grace Kalenge and Lydia Nadunga