Nsibambi address to clergy on land
Jan 24, 2008
The Government plan to amend the the Land Act has been opposed by Buganda Kingdom officials. Here is <b>Prime Minister Prof. Apolo Nsibambi’s</b> speech at a consultative meeting with religious leaders on the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007, held on January 23 at Statistics House in Kampala ...
The Government plan to amend the the Land Act has been opposed by Buganda Kingdom officials. Below is Prime Minister Prof. Apolo Nsibambi’s speech at a consultative meeting with religious leaders on the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007, held on January 23 at Statistics House in Kampala ...
Background
The land law in Uganda has had a checkered history. We may recall that in 1900, there was a paradigm shift in the land holding in Uganda. Under the Uganda Agreement of 1900, the land tenurial system drastically changed and in addition to the commonly known and used traditional, customary or communal land holding, mailo, leasehold and freehold interest were introduced. For instance, in Buganda “in the 1900 land settlement, land was shared almost equally between the leading chiefs, relatives and friends, on the one hand, and the Uganda Protectorate Government on the other. Out of a population of close to one million people, only 3700 were allocated land and the rest remained landless. They held bibanja at the mercy of both the mailoland owners as they came to be known, and the Uganda Protectorate Government, whose Crown land was really intended for alienation to non-natives. The colonial administration was convinced that the land needs of the Bakopi were adequately catered for by the mailoland owners and that there was no need to cater for them separately.†Furthermore, in Buganda, Prof. Lwanga-Luyiigo states that “land was shared as indicated in the table.
In 1941 a decision was made to extend official “mailo†to sub-county (Gombolola) chiefs. Each county chief surrendered 1sq. mile for the purpose. On average, each gombolola official “mailo†was 49 acres.
The aftermath of the 1900 Agreement witnessed social unrest and conflict where the bibanja owners agitated to revert to customary land holding. This resulted in the enactment of the Busuulu and Envujjo Law of 1928, Ankole Land lord and Tenant Law of 1937, and Toro Landlord and Tenant Law of 1937. These laws made eviction of peasants difficult and assured them of reasonable security for as long as they paid rent.
Unfortunately, for the peasants, the above laws which were enacted to harmonise their relationship with the landlords were repealed by the Land Reform Decree of 1975, which converted all land into leases including the mailo and freehold estates. It is the NRM Government, which, under the 1998 Land Act, reinstated the security of tenure of bibanja holding and the freehold and mailo land interests.
It is now clear that peasants are more insecure in their tenancy of bibanja than they were governed by the above land lord and tenant laws. This may be attributed to the fact that during the days of Busuulu and Envujjo Law, etc, the landlords were predominantly rent-farmers and the respective societies were generally homogeneous governed by common customs, cultures and norms. Today, the social construct and economic orientation of these societies have drastically changed. This has resulted into aggressive methods of conflict resolution which has given rise to rampant evictions of the peasants. The current law is not adequate and strong enough to handle the perpetrators of these evictions and hence the proposed Land (Amendment) Bill, 2007.
You may wish to note that in the same spirit, the Chief Justice issued Practice Direction No.1 of 2007 (legal Notice No.11 of 2007 published in the Gazette on August 5, 2007) on the issue of orders relating to registered land which affects or impact on the tenants by occupancy. The Practice Direction was made to provide for a fair and smooth operation of orders in respect of registered land which affect or have an impact on the tenants by occupancy, and applies to proceedings before the judges, registrars and all courts subordinate to the High Court, including the Land Tribunals and the local council courts. It emphasises the need to visit the locus in quo, ensuring the hearing and presence of all parties, their witnesses, and advocates (if any), ensuring that in the event of ordering an eviction, to determine a just and equitable date on which the occupant shall vacate the land and remove the illegal structure and to determine the date on which a demolition and an eviction order may be carried out, etc.
In the Practice Direction, the Chief Justice restates that law thus:
a) The security of occupancy of tenants on registered land is guaranteed by Article 237(8) of the Constitution and section 31 of the Land Act, and such tenants are deemed to be tenants of the registered owner.
b) Section 64(2) of the Registration of Titles Act makes any land included in any certificate of title subject to the interest of any tenant of the land though it may not be specially notified as an encumbrance on the certificateâ€
Section 64(2) of the Registration of Titles Act also means that any buyer of titled land buys subject to any encumbrance on it including any kibanja holding.
The measures in the Practice Direction are not only reiterated in the Land (Amendment) Bill but appropriate penal provisions are prescribed in the event of any contravention. You may also wish to note that the Bill goes beyond actual penal or criminal punishments and provides that a court may order for restitution, compensation or damages in favour of the evictee.
I am also happy to note that the Chief Justice was reported in The New Vision, January 22, 2008 as backing the proposed land reforms, saying they will strengthen the relationship between tenants and landlords.
THE LAND AMENDMENT BILL, 2007
The Constitution and the Land Act define and regulate the relationship between Tenants on registered land and their Landlords. Whereas these tenants are supposed to enjoy security of occupancy on the land, there have been widespread evictions of these categories of tenants in utter disregard of their interest in the land as provided by Article 237 of the Constitution, Section 31 of the Land Act and Section 64(2)of the Registration of Titles Act.
The principal objective of the Bill is to amend the Land Act to enhance the security of occupancy of tenants on registered land and persons on customary land, as a way to address these widespread evictions. The evictions are even sometimes carried out at night in a brutal and secret manner. Furthermore, as a result of the years of war in the North, land disputes have arisen due to displacement and resettlement, which the law must address.
In some cases, a single landlord evicts as many as 400 families. This render on average 2,800 people landless by one act of a landlord. In the last two years, such evictions have been noted to have taken place in Wakiso district (Manyangwa where over 400 families were evicted and in Katale-Nalumunye where over 100 tenants were evicted, Kitebi where 100 families were evicted), Mpigi district; Kampala district (Bugolobi with 200 families being threatened with eviction, Makindye with 200 families evicted, Kigo with 200 families evicted, Kisenyi where 1,000 tenants were evicted); Mityana district (20 families were evicted from Busujju); Mubende District (Bageza where 525 families were evicted, Myanzi where 2,000 families were evicted, Bukuya where 600 families were evicted, and Kitenga where 800 families were evicted); Mukono district (Wantoni where 50 families and a Primary School were evicted); Kayunga district (in Kokootero where 400 families were evicted, and in Bbale sub- county where 2,000 families were evicted); Kyenjojo (Matiri where 30 families were evicted and Mwenge where 20 families were evicted); Butaleja (Doho over 200 families were evicted); and Mayuge District (where 12 families were evicted). These evictions have necessitated Government intervention and hence the Bill.
Clause 1: It provides for the determination of nominal annual ground rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.
Whereas the current law provides that this nominal ground rent is to be determined by District Land Boards and approved by the Minister in charge of Lands (as per amendment of 2004), no District Land Board has exercised its powers to do so. The consequences of this is that tenants have not been paying the nominal annual ground rent. And therefore, the relationship between the two categories has not been harmonious.
To address this gap, this provision provides that the Minister in charge of Lands may determine the nominal ground rent payable by tenants of land lords where District Land Board fails or omit to so within a specified item. However, since it is not mandatory for the minister to fix the ground rent, he/she may continue to prompt the District Land Board. The minister has to use this power judiciously after proper consultation.
Clause 2: This is a new section to the Land Act, which provides that tenants on registered land can only be evicted by Order of Court, and only on one ground-non payment of the nominal annual ground rent. Likewise, persons who have interest on customary land can only be evicted by order of court.
The clause further gives guidelines to courts to consider certain matters before granting an order of eviction and also to give a grace period of not less than 6 months to a tenant, before an eviction can be lawfully carried out.
This clause is similar to Section 11 of the repealed Envujjo and Busuulo law of 1928, which allowed for tenants to be evicted by court order.
Section 92 on Offence and Penalties in the Land Act Cap. 227 did not stipulate any penalty for illegal eviction by land lords. The new clause inserted in Section 32A and 32B criminalises any person who evicts or aids in evicting tenants from registered land without a court order by being liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
Clause 3: This clause amends Section 35 of the Land Act. Whereas a tenant by occupancy who wishes to assign his/her occupancy rights (kibanja) should give the first option to the landlord, some tenants have been doing so in contravention of the law. The clause criminalises the actions of such a tenants. Previous, no fine was stipulated. In the proposed Amendments, such a tenant will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding sh1,920,000 or imprisonment not exceeding four years or both. On the other hand, a land lord who wishes to sell his /her land which is occupied by a tenants is to give the first option to buy to that tenant, some land lords have also not been complying with this provision.
A sale by a land lord without first giving the tenant the first option to buy is made invalid by the clause, and such a transfer shall not be registered on the title if registered, the transaction shall be invalid.
Clause 4: this clause amends by substituting it with Section 92(4) of the Land Act. The clause stiffens that penalty for a person who commits offences under sub-section 1. Previously, it was providing for the payment of a fine not exceeding sh500,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both. The proposed amendment is providing for the payment of a fine not exceeding sh1,920,000 or imprisonment not exceeding four years or both.
I, therefore, invite you to support the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007.
For God and My Country.
Background
The land law in Uganda has had a checkered history. We may recall that in 1900, there was a paradigm shift in the land holding in Uganda. Under the Uganda Agreement of 1900, the land tenurial system drastically changed and in addition to the commonly known and used traditional, customary or communal land holding, mailo, leasehold and freehold interest were introduced. For instance, in Buganda “in the 1900 land settlement, land was shared almost equally between the leading chiefs, relatives and friends, on the one hand, and the Uganda Protectorate Government on the other. Out of a population of close to one million people, only 3700 were allocated land and the rest remained landless. They held bibanja at the mercy of both the mailoland owners as they came to be known, and the Uganda Protectorate Government, whose Crown land was really intended for alienation to non-natives. The colonial administration was convinced that the land needs of the Bakopi were adequately catered for by the mailoland owners and that there was no need to cater for them separately.†Furthermore, in Buganda, Prof. Lwanga-Luyiigo states that “land was shared as indicated in the table.
In 1941 a decision was made to extend official “mailo†to sub-county (Gombolola) chiefs. Each county chief surrendered 1sq. mile for the purpose. On average, each gombolola official “mailo†was 49 acres.
The aftermath of the 1900 Agreement witnessed social unrest and conflict where the bibanja owners agitated to revert to customary land holding. This resulted in the enactment of the Busuulu and Envujjo Law of 1928, Ankole Land lord and Tenant Law of 1937, and Toro Landlord and Tenant Law of 1937. These laws made eviction of peasants difficult and assured them of reasonable security for as long as they paid rent.
Unfortunately, for the peasants, the above laws which were enacted to harmonise their relationship with the landlords were repealed by the Land Reform Decree of 1975, which converted all land into leases including the mailo and freehold estates. It is the NRM Government, which, under the 1998 Land Act, reinstated the security of tenure of bibanja holding and the freehold and mailo land interests.
It is now clear that peasants are more insecure in their tenancy of bibanja than they were governed by the above land lord and tenant laws. This may be attributed to the fact that during the days of Busuulu and Envujjo Law, etc, the landlords were predominantly rent-farmers and the respective societies were generally homogeneous governed by common customs, cultures and norms. Today, the social construct and economic orientation of these societies have drastically changed. This has resulted into aggressive methods of conflict resolution which has given rise to rampant evictions of the peasants. The current law is not adequate and strong enough to handle the perpetrators of these evictions and hence the proposed Land (Amendment) Bill, 2007.
You may wish to note that in the same spirit, the Chief Justice issued Practice Direction No.1 of 2007 (legal Notice No.11 of 2007 published in the Gazette on August 5, 2007) on the issue of orders relating to registered land which affects or impact on the tenants by occupancy. The Practice Direction was made to provide for a fair and smooth operation of orders in respect of registered land which affect or have an impact on the tenants by occupancy, and applies to proceedings before the judges, registrars and all courts subordinate to the High Court, including the Land Tribunals and the local council courts. It emphasises the need to visit the locus in quo, ensuring the hearing and presence of all parties, their witnesses, and advocates (if any), ensuring that in the event of ordering an eviction, to determine a just and equitable date on which the occupant shall vacate the land and remove the illegal structure and to determine the date on which a demolition and an eviction order may be carried out, etc.
In the Practice Direction, the Chief Justice restates that law thus:
a) The security of occupancy of tenants on registered land is guaranteed by Article 237(8) of the Constitution and section 31 of the Land Act, and such tenants are deemed to be tenants of the registered owner.
b) Section 64(2) of the Registration of Titles Act makes any land included in any certificate of title subject to the interest of any tenant of the land though it may not be specially notified as an encumbrance on the certificateâ€
Section 64(2) of the Registration of Titles Act also means that any buyer of titled land buys subject to any encumbrance on it including any kibanja holding.
The measures in the Practice Direction are not only reiterated in the Land (Amendment) Bill but appropriate penal provisions are prescribed in the event of any contravention. You may also wish to note that the Bill goes beyond actual penal or criminal punishments and provides that a court may order for restitution, compensation or damages in favour of the evictee.
I am also happy to note that the Chief Justice was reported in The New Vision, January 22, 2008 as backing the proposed land reforms, saying they will strengthen the relationship between tenants and landlords.
THE LAND AMENDMENT BILL, 2007
The Constitution and the Land Act define and regulate the relationship between Tenants on registered land and their Landlords. Whereas these tenants are supposed to enjoy security of occupancy on the land, there have been widespread evictions of these categories of tenants in utter disregard of their interest in the land as provided by Article 237 of the Constitution, Section 31 of the Land Act and Section 64(2)of the Registration of Titles Act.
The principal objective of the Bill is to amend the Land Act to enhance the security of occupancy of tenants on registered land and persons on customary land, as a way to address these widespread evictions. The evictions are even sometimes carried out at night in a brutal and secret manner. Furthermore, as a result of the years of war in the North, land disputes have arisen due to displacement and resettlement, which the law must address.
In some cases, a single landlord evicts as many as 400 families. This render on average 2,800 people landless by one act of a landlord. In the last two years, such evictions have been noted to have taken place in Wakiso district (Manyangwa where over 400 families were evicted and in Katale-Nalumunye where over 100 tenants were evicted, Kitebi where 100 families were evicted), Mpigi district; Kampala district (Bugolobi with 200 families being threatened with eviction, Makindye with 200 families evicted, Kigo with 200 families evicted, Kisenyi where 1,000 tenants were evicted); Mityana district (20 families were evicted from Busujju); Mubende District (Bageza where 525 families were evicted, Myanzi where 2,000 families were evicted, Bukuya where 600 families were evicted, and Kitenga where 800 families were evicted); Mukono district (Wantoni where 50 families and a Primary School were evicted); Kayunga district (in Kokootero where 400 families were evicted, and in Bbale sub- county where 2,000 families were evicted); Kyenjojo (Matiri where 30 families were evicted and Mwenge where 20 families were evicted); Butaleja (Doho over 200 families were evicted); and Mayuge District (where 12 families were evicted). These evictions have necessitated Government intervention and hence the Bill.
Clause 1: It provides for the determination of nominal annual ground rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.
Whereas the current law provides that this nominal ground rent is to be determined by District Land Boards and approved by the Minister in charge of Lands (as per amendment of 2004), no District Land Board has exercised its powers to do so. The consequences of this is that tenants have not been paying the nominal annual ground rent. And therefore, the relationship between the two categories has not been harmonious.
To address this gap, this provision provides that the Minister in charge of Lands may determine the nominal ground rent payable by tenants of land lords where District Land Board fails or omit to so within a specified item. However, since it is not mandatory for the minister to fix the ground rent, he/she may continue to prompt the District Land Board. The minister has to use this power judiciously after proper consultation.
Clause 2: This is a new section to the Land Act, which provides that tenants on registered land can only be evicted by Order of Court, and only on one ground-non payment of the nominal annual ground rent. Likewise, persons who have interest on customary land can only be evicted by order of court.
The clause further gives guidelines to courts to consider certain matters before granting an order of eviction and also to give a grace period of not less than 6 months to a tenant, before an eviction can be lawfully carried out.
This clause is similar to Section 11 of the repealed Envujjo and Busuulo law of 1928, which allowed for tenants to be evicted by court order.
Section 92 on Offence and Penalties in the Land Act Cap. 227 did not stipulate any penalty for illegal eviction by land lords. The new clause inserted in Section 32A and 32B criminalises any person who evicts or aids in evicting tenants from registered land without a court order by being liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.
Clause 3: This clause amends Section 35 of the Land Act. Whereas a tenant by occupancy who wishes to assign his/her occupancy rights (kibanja) should give the first option to the landlord, some tenants have been doing so in contravention of the law. The clause criminalises the actions of such a tenants. Previous, no fine was stipulated. In the proposed Amendments, such a tenant will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding sh1,920,000 or imprisonment not exceeding four years or both. On the other hand, a land lord who wishes to sell his /her land which is occupied by a tenants is to give the first option to buy to that tenant, some land lords have also not been complying with this provision.
A sale by a land lord without first giving the tenant the first option to buy is made invalid by the clause, and such a transfer shall not be registered on the title if registered, the transaction shall be invalid.
Clause 4: this clause amends by substituting it with Section 92(4) of the Land Act. The clause stiffens that penalty for a person who commits offences under sub-section 1. Previously, it was providing for the payment of a fine not exceeding sh500,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both. The proposed amendment is providing for the payment of a fine not exceeding sh1,920,000 or imprisonment not exceeding four years or both.
I, therefore, invite you to support the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007.
For God and My Country.