By Mukembo Wilfred
Court has quashed a directive by state House officer, Sandra Ndyomugyenyi regarding a disputed land at Mulago roundabout near Wandegeya.
High Court Judge Boniface Wamala observed that Ndyomugyenyi disguised an order as a recommendation which is illegal.
“…the directive allowing Dr Ntwatwa Lule to use his land without any disturbance from other parties claiming interest unless court pronounces itself otherwise contradicts this express order of court and is outrightly illegal. The first respondent is not vested with powers under any law to alter, vary or contradict a decision of a court of law,” Justice Wamala held.
The court decision followed a case in which Pr Daniel Walugembe successfully sued Ndyomugyenyi jointly with the Attorney General challenging the directive made by Ndyomugyenyi.
On June 13,2023, Ndyomugyenyi, state house officer attached to the legal department, authored a report in which she directed a one Dr Ntwatwa Lule to be allowed to use his land land without any disturbance from other parties claiming interest unless court pronounces itself otherwise.
The directive followed a meeting regarding a complaint lodged by a member of the public over ownership and possession of the land at Mulago roundabout.
But the court ruled that Ndyomugyenyi’s directive contradict earlier court decisions and other orders that were already in place regarding the same land.
“As such, the act by the first respondent of calling meetings upon receiving a complaint from a member of the public with concerns over public public order and security would not be a problem and would not offend any law. However, the problem arises where either the purpose of calling the meeting or the business conducted at the meeting falls outside the mandate of the entity,” the court ruled.
Justice Wamala held that an officer in the Legal department of state house even when he or she has lawfully convened an official meeting, has no power to make a legal provision having the force of the law since it falls within the ambit of the legislature.
The judge ruled that the (State house) officer has no power to hear and determine disputes, rights and interests between persons as such role falls within the mandate of courts, which is a constitutional directive.
Court heard that Ndyomugyenyi convened a meeting, she investigated a dispute over land, came to her own conclusion, different from the findings reached in earlier decisions by courts and made a directive that was not based on any orders of court.
“…the first respondent (Ndyomugyenyi) is understood to mean that her directive carried the force of law and it could only be varied if a party went to court to challenge it; the position exposed by the first respondent was not based on any existing court decisions that had already made pronouncements over the dispute,” the court held.
Court documents show that the court in two cases of 2000 and 2017 decreed the land belonging to Pr Walugembe.
Court records show that in 2019, the court dismissed with costs, a case in which Dr Ntwatwa and 99 others had sought to challenge Pr Walugembe’s interest in the said land and that the same decision was never appealed nor reversed.
“The worst case scenario was in HC miscellaneous application number 1710 of 2021: Walugembe Daniel Vs Attorney General and 8 others, the court had issued an order of a temporary injunction in favour of the applicant against the second respondent restraining them from evicting or interfering with the applicant’s utilisation or development of his kibanja,”the court observed.
Justice Wamala has now issued an order stopping Ms Ndyomugyenyi and any other officer of government from Implementing the state House directive contained in the June 13,2023 report reasoning that any further enforcement of the challenged directive would be illegal.
