By Hannah Marion Namukasa
The High Court has dismissed a case in which Muljibhai Madhvani and Company Limited challenged a consent judgment and court decree recognising Pastor Daniel Walugembe as the owner of approximately 168 acres of land and granting him possession.
Acting High Court Judge Ida Nakiganda dismissed the application, citing the company’s failure to attach the consent judgment it sought to have reviewed and quashed.
Justice Nakiganda held that the consent judgment was a foundational document that was critical in establishing whether Madhvani and Company was an aggrieved party entitled to seek a review.
The judge observed that the company omitted or failed to attach the consent judgment to the sworn documents filed in support of its application, leaving court unable to establish the basis of its claims.
“The Applicant seeks review of a consent judgement that is not attached to the affidavit in support of the Application. The Court was therefore left to speculate the contents of a consent judgment which consent judgment formed the basis of this Application,” Justice Nakiganda held.
She added that court had no way of validating and ascertaining the claims of the parties without the consent judgment being attached to the application.
Justice Nakiganda further ruled that the company could not cure the omission by introducing the consent judgment through additional sworn statements.
“In my view, introducing a foundational document; one that forms the basis for the application through an affidavit in rejoinder is a wrong procedure. Admitting such an important document as evidence in these circumstances would be misusing the purpose of rejoinder affidavits. These are meant to respond to what the opposing party had stated,” the judge held.
The judge consequently found that Madhvani and Company had failed to establish that it was an aggrieved person entitled to seek review of the consent judgment.
Through its lawyers, Kampala Associated Advocates (KAA), Madhvani and Company Limited had asked the High Court to review and quash the consent judgment entered between members of the family of the late Muwanga Omuweesi and Pastor Walugembe.
The company argued that it was the registered proprietor of the land affected by the consent judgment and that the judgment had been entered in proceedings to which it was not a party, without its knowledge, participation or consent.
Madhvani and Company sued Pastor Walugembe jointly with the administrators of the estate of the late Muwanga Omuweesi, Kalumba Benjamin Sebuliba and Kayongo Robert Musoke.
Other family members named as respondents are Magala James, Busulwa Muhamed, Nantega Alexandria, Namusoke Rosette, Kiwanuka Kelementi, Sebuliba Peter Wasswa, Busulwa Mark and Birabwa Juliet.
The company claims that it is the registered proprietor of land comprised in FRV 2 Folio 23, Busiro Block 374, Plots 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 at Nakigalala in Wakiso District, having acquired and been registered as proprietor on January 2, 2012.
However, Pastor Walugembe, through his lawyers, argued that Madhvani and Company is not an aggrieved person because it has no legally recognised interest in the land comprised in Block 374 MRV 21 Folio 18, which was the subject of the consent judgment.
Walugembe told court that he acquired approximately 168 acres of the land from the second and third respondents, who are administrators of the estate of the late Muwanga Omuweesi, together with beneficiaries of the estate, in 2010.
He said he immediately took possession of the land and has remained in occupation since then.
“He (Walugembe) maintains that, at the time of his acquisition, the land was in the possession and use of members of the Muwanga Omuweesi family and not the Applicant or its predecessors in title,” court documents state.
Walugembe further stated that he had developed the land, established permanent houses and gardens and remained in possession without challenge for more than 15 years.
He also argued that Madhvani and Company’s claim was barred by limitation and, alternatively, that his long possession supported a claim to adverse possession.
The land dispute has previously been the subject of litigation.
In 2013, HCCS No. 33 of 2013 was instituted by the second and third respondents against Madhvani and Company. The suit was subsequently renumbered HCCS No. 0640 of 2025 and is pending before the High Court in Entebbe.
While that case was pending, HCCS No. 235 of 2025 was instituted by Pastor Walugembe against the second to 11th respondents concerning approximately 168 acres of land at Nakigalala, described in the pleadings as Block 374 MRV 21 Folio 18.
