Why Mengo, govt are fighting over land law
Jan 07, 2008
There are four key issues that the Land Amendment Bill 2007 attempts to address. First, the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act 1998 created permanent occupancy interests on registered land for the kibanja holders, hence a land use deadlock between the statutory tenants (lawful occupants and bonafide
By Margaret Rugadya
There are four key issues that the Land Amendment Bill 2007 attempts to address. First, the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act 1998 created permanent occupancy interests on registered land for the kibanja holders, hence a land use deadlock between the statutory tenants (lawful occupants and bonafide occupants i.e. bibanja holders) and the registered land owner (mailo, native freehold, leasehold owner).
Second, the Government is saddled with a dilemma. The existing landlord-tenant relationship as enacted in the Land Act Cap 227 served to escalate land conflicts and evictions by personifying overlapping and conflicting land rights on one and the same piece of land. The definition and rights accorded to bonafide occupants in the same Act are unpopular and lack legitimacy on the part of most landlords.
The landlords feel cheated because the law (Land Act 1998) legalised an illegitimate acquisition process, one that did not involve the owners consent, for purposes of clarity a tenancy is supposed to exist with consent of the land owner.
Thirdly, the other controversy surrounds nominal ground rent as provided for in the Land Act Cap 227. This not only served to devalue the title-holder’s property but sent their minds thinking creatively on how to re-inject the values in their properties. In order not to lose consumerate value, desperate landlords have sold to those individuals with the political-backing, appropriate legal muscle and the economic ability to massively evict tenants.
The disagreement between Mengo and Central Government is about according a near zero (nominal) value, if the Districts Land Boards or the Minister for Lands sets sh1,000 as ground rent, moreover without their input!
Lastly, the current legal lacuna as far as compensation to lawful occupants and bonafide occupants are concerned.
Prior to the 1995 Constitution, a registered land owner could apply to court to pay compensation would be adjudicated by the court and give a 3-month or 6-month quit notice to the tenant on payment of fair compensation. The statutory protection given to the lawful occupants and bonafide occupants under the Land Act leaves no room for compensation. The mutual agreement proposed between the registered land owner and the occupant has failed to work, hence the rampant evictions.
It is now accepted that the current provisions in the Land Act Cap 227 are not effective in resolving the deadlock, hence the rampant mass evictions by registered land owners or their agents or purchasers.
The proposals of the Land Amendment Bill 2007, therefore, seeks to nip the problem in the bud, by deterring the well to do buyers, from purchasing tenanted titled land from desperate landlords, through criminalising the evictions and setting punitive measures of up to seven-years imprisonment for whoever assists or participates in the process.
There are three pillars on which the Mengo establishment would ideally stand; the political, economic and cultural pillars. The political was done away with upon restoration of the kingdom. The economic and cultural are fundamentally built and hinge on land as an economic factor and as a cultural embodiment.
The issue here is to avoid a legalistic interpretation that is subjective to the interests of tenants, who deserve a corrective social justice, but to turn around and stand in Mengo’s shoes and ask the question, if it were your ship, would you let it sink by allowing the Central Government remove the most important premise of your survival as a culture and economic base? Definitely not!
With the proposed amendments, tenants or kibanja holders, especially those in Buganda region, are supposed to be celebrating, but the “wise men†in Mengo have ensured that the measures are viewed as those cheating the kingdom as whole, because it is the single largest owner of titled mailo land in central Uganda, therefore it feels intentionally targeted, indeed political strategists have particularly cultivated this one.
This is a catch 22, as far as I understand, the definition of the problem for both Mengo and Central Government is harmonious, however the point of departure is the solutions.
The question is, will the amendment in practical terms resolve the four problems stated above? Is it a tall order given the cultural and economic implications associated with the setting of ground rent at a near zero value?
What are the alternatives to resolve this crisis in the eyes of Mengo, since Government has put its cards on the table.
Remember, Uganda’s history is such that changes in political governance have often resulted in changes in land tenure regimes based on legislative reforms.
The writer is a researcher on Land and Natural Resource Policy.
There are four key issues that the Land Amendment Bill 2007 attempts to address. First, the 1995 Constitution and the Land Act 1998 created permanent occupancy interests on registered land for the kibanja holders, hence a land use deadlock between the statutory tenants (lawful occupants and bonafide occupants i.e. bibanja holders) and the registered land owner (mailo, native freehold, leasehold owner).
Second, the Government is saddled with a dilemma. The existing landlord-tenant relationship as enacted in the Land Act Cap 227 served to escalate land conflicts and evictions by personifying overlapping and conflicting land rights on one and the same piece of land. The definition and rights accorded to bonafide occupants in the same Act are unpopular and lack legitimacy on the part of most landlords.
The landlords feel cheated because the law (Land Act 1998) legalised an illegitimate acquisition process, one that did not involve the owners consent, for purposes of clarity a tenancy is supposed to exist with consent of the land owner.
Thirdly, the other controversy surrounds nominal ground rent as provided for in the Land Act Cap 227. This not only served to devalue the title-holder’s property but sent their minds thinking creatively on how to re-inject the values in their properties. In order not to lose consumerate value, desperate landlords have sold to those individuals with the political-backing, appropriate legal muscle and the economic ability to massively evict tenants.
The disagreement between Mengo and Central Government is about according a near zero (nominal) value, if the Districts Land Boards or the Minister for Lands sets sh1,000 as ground rent, moreover without their input!
Lastly, the current legal lacuna as far as compensation to lawful occupants and bonafide occupants are concerned.
Prior to the 1995 Constitution, a registered land owner could apply to court to pay compensation would be adjudicated by the court and give a 3-month or 6-month quit notice to the tenant on payment of fair compensation. The statutory protection given to the lawful occupants and bonafide occupants under the Land Act leaves no room for compensation. The mutual agreement proposed between the registered land owner and the occupant has failed to work, hence the rampant evictions.
It is now accepted that the current provisions in the Land Act Cap 227 are not effective in resolving the deadlock, hence the rampant mass evictions by registered land owners or their agents or purchasers.
The proposals of the Land Amendment Bill 2007, therefore, seeks to nip the problem in the bud, by deterring the well to do buyers, from purchasing tenanted titled land from desperate landlords, through criminalising the evictions and setting punitive measures of up to seven-years imprisonment for whoever assists or participates in the process.
There are three pillars on which the Mengo establishment would ideally stand; the political, economic and cultural pillars. The political was done away with upon restoration of the kingdom. The economic and cultural are fundamentally built and hinge on land as an economic factor and as a cultural embodiment.
The issue here is to avoid a legalistic interpretation that is subjective to the interests of tenants, who deserve a corrective social justice, but to turn around and stand in Mengo’s shoes and ask the question, if it were your ship, would you let it sink by allowing the Central Government remove the most important premise of your survival as a culture and economic base? Definitely not!
With the proposed amendments, tenants or kibanja holders, especially those in Buganda region, are supposed to be celebrating, but the “wise men†in Mengo have ensured that the measures are viewed as those cheating the kingdom as whole, because it is the single largest owner of titled mailo land in central Uganda, therefore it feels intentionally targeted, indeed political strategists have particularly cultivated this one.
This is a catch 22, as far as I understand, the definition of the problem for both Mengo and Central Government is harmonious, however the point of departure is the solutions.
The question is, will the amendment in practical terms resolve the four problems stated above? Is it a tall order given the cultural and economic implications associated with the setting of ground rent at a near zero value?
What are the alternatives to resolve this crisis in the eyes of Mengo, since Government has put its cards on the table.
Remember, Uganda’s history is such that changes in political governance have often resulted in changes in land tenure regimes based on legislative reforms.
The writer is a researcher on Land and Natural Resource Policy.