Indian family repossessed Mbuya land illegally â€" Police report
Sep 05, 2011
THE prime land that the Esmail family is fighting for with 10 other claimants in Mbuya, Nakawa division, was not repossessed by the Asians as required by law, a Police report has revealed.
By Chris Kiwawulo and Simon Masaba
THE prime land that the Esmail family is fighting for with 10 other claimants in Mbuya, Nakawa division, was not repossessed by the Asians as required by law, a Police report has revealed.
Indians of the Esmail family and a Canadian national, Joseph Konyen, each claim ownership of the land. Konyen and nine others say they rightfully bought the land from the Government through the office of the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board, while Canada-based Nizar Esmail says his family repossessed the land in 1992.
The prime land with seven houses are on several plots measuring about four acres. The plots are; 135 – 141 on Esmail Road and 63A, B and C on Mbuya Hill Road.
Although each of the two parties claims ownership of the plots, a Police report dated August 10, 2009, a copy of which New Vision has seen, says; “all the certificates of title at the land registry do not indicate any entries of repossession as required by the law.â€
Investigations done by detective assistant superintendent of Police G.W. Sentamu found several flaws in the alleged repossession process. “There is no evidence that the relevant fees for repossession were paid,†Sentamu said.
He also noted that although the repossession was approved in 1992, the certificates were issued on May 1997, creating suspicion about the delay.
The report also reveals that in 1992, Mulira and Company Advocates applied for repossession allegedly on behalf of Badrudin Esmail (father of Nizar), but the law firm failed to produce documents indicating that they were appointed agents or legal representatives of the proprietors (Esmail family).
Another law firm called Odere, Nalyanya and Company advocates (now Lex Uganda) was in 2002 found to be having powers of attorney for three of the seven Esmail family members.
But the firm’s lead counsel, Charles Odere, also failed to adduce any proof of instructions from the owners to manage the properties on their behalf.
Odere instead told detectives that the Esmail family had instructed him to look after plots 135-141 between 2006-2009.
The only document appointing Odere’s firm was an undated fax copied to the Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary, which investigators quashed.
The report adds that the purported re-entry regarding plots 63A – 63C by the Esmail family was nullified by the Expropriated Properties Act, Chapter 87.
It also established that the proprietors never returned to repossess the property as required by the Expropriated Properties Act but instead used Mulira and Company Advocates to do so.
The Expropriated Properties Act requires exiled property owners to return to Uganda within 21 days after getting authorisation of repossession.
In his letter dated August 13, 2010, former chief of the Police Land Protection Unit, Charles Kataratambi, said investigations showed that the repossession certificate was fraudulently issued. He recommended criminal proceedings against those responsible.
THE prime land that the Esmail family is fighting for with 10 other claimants in Mbuya, Nakawa division, was not repossessed by the Asians as required by law, a Police report has revealed.
Indians of the Esmail family and a Canadian national, Joseph Konyen, each claim ownership of the land. Konyen and nine others say they rightfully bought the land from the Government through the office of the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board, while Canada-based Nizar Esmail says his family repossessed the land in 1992.
The prime land with seven houses are on several plots measuring about four acres. The plots are; 135 – 141 on Esmail Road and 63A, B and C on Mbuya Hill Road.
Although each of the two parties claims ownership of the plots, a Police report dated August 10, 2009, a copy of which New Vision has seen, says; “all the certificates of title at the land registry do not indicate any entries of repossession as required by the law.â€
Investigations done by detective assistant superintendent of Police G.W. Sentamu found several flaws in the alleged repossession process. “There is no evidence that the relevant fees for repossession were paid,†Sentamu said.
He also noted that although the repossession was approved in 1992, the certificates were issued on May 1997, creating suspicion about the delay.
The report also reveals that in 1992, Mulira and Company Advocates applied for repossession allegedly on behalf of Badrudin Esmail (father of Nizar), but the law firm failed to produce documents indicating that they were appointed agents or legal representatives of the proprietors (Esmail family).
Another law firm called Odere, Nalyanya and Company advocates (now Lex Uganda) was in 2002 found to be having powers of attorney for three of the seven Esmail family members.
But the firm’s lead counsel, Charles Odere, also failed to adduce any proof of instructions from the owners to manage the properties on their behalf.
Odere instead told detectives that the Esmail family had instructed him to look after plots 135-141 between 2006-2009.
The only document appointing Odere’s firm was an undated fax copied to the Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary, which investigators quashed.
The report adds that the purported re-entry regarding plots 63A – 63C by the Esmail family was nullified by the Expropriated Properties Act, Chapter 87.
It also established that the proprietors never returned to repossess the property as required by the Expropriated Properties Act but instead used Mulira and Company Advocates to do so.
The Expropriated Properties Act requires exiled property owners to return to Uganda within 21 days after getting authorisation of repossession.
In his letter dated August 13, 2010, former chief of the Police Land Protection Unit, Charles Kataratambi, said investigations showed that the repossession certificate was fraudulently issued. He recommended criminal proceedings against those responsible.