By Spy Uganda
Kampala: On Monday August 10th,2020, the Church of Uganda was engulfed with shock after St. Peter’s Church in Ndeeba, Lubaga Division, was demolished following a scuffle between Dan Ssemwanga, who allegedly bought the church land from Princess Evelyn Nachwa’s family and the Church of Uganda (COU) as the administrators of the estate.
According to our Spies on ground, it has been discovered that the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) on August 20, 2020, cleared Ssemwanga aka Dodovico to demolish all the properties on the land and particularly the church buildings.
However, the Authority cautioned that the demolition should be carried out strictly during weekends and during day time to avoid interruption of traffic and other businesses within the vicinity of the site, a regulation Ssemwanga didn’t follow.
KCCA’s letter reads thus in part;
“KAMPALA CAPITAL CITY AUTHORITY
Our ref: DPP/CCA/1701
30 July 2020
Ephraim Enterprises Ltd
P.O. Box. KAMPALA
PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ON PLOT 3 BLOCK 7, NDEEBA-LUBAGA DIVISION.
Refer to your application regarding the above mentioned subject.
Permission is granted to you to carry out the following.
Demolition of existing structure for redevelopment.
The above work shall be done subject to the following general conditions:
1. The Authority shall be indemnified from any accidental damages and/ loss for property and lives incidental for the said works.The client and contractor(s shall both individually and severally be liable for any such occurrences.
2. The Authority is indemnified from any complaint(s) or conflicts that may arise as a result of the above demolition works being carried out.
3. Ensure that there are no people living in the structures at the time of demolition.
4. Pay a fee of Ug. Shs. 50.000/(Shillings Fifty thousand) only plus VAT in the designated Bank before any work starts.
5. This permit shall be valid for the period of only 2 (two) months from the date of issue of this permit.
6. There shall be no littering on the roads and neighboring areas while at carrying out demolition is to be done carefully to avoid damages for the neighboring properties.
7. All toxic material shall be disposed of carefully and the Authority shall not permit the generation of excessive and disruptive noise from the execution of the work.
8. The demolition shall be carried out strictly during the weekends and on the day hours to avoid interruption of traffic and other businesses within the vicinity of the site.
9. Use of simple conventional tools on the demolition shall be preferred. Ensure safety precaution for the neighbouring structures and safety for cases of deep excavations
10.All existing service lines on or next the site are to be protected during the Course of execution of the works
11. The Authority reserves the right to revoke this permit any time in case of breach of any of the above stipulated provisions and any other provision in the building rule.
KCCA Ag. DIRECTOR PHYSICAL PLANNING
CC: Town Clerk, Lubaga Division
Director Revenue Collection
Supervisor Development Control
Building Inspector, Lubaga Division”
In the same vein it has also been discovered that the High Court of Uganda Land Division under suit number 432 of 2008 permitted the demolition through their ruling which reads:
“THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO. 432 OF 2008
1. DAN SSEMWANGA
2.JOHN KAJOBA
3. EDWARD BALUNGA …………PLAINTIFFS
4. STEVEN NAKIBINGE
(Joint Administrators of the estate of the late Evelyn (Evairini) Nachwa and referred to as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th plaintiffs respectively in the order they appear on the plaint).
VERSUS
1. LUCY NSUBUGA (Administratrix of the estate of Bishop D. (Order Zolpidem) Nsubuga)
2. CONSTANCE NALONGO KIZITO (Administratrix of the estate of Esau K. Kizito)….Defendants
3. ARMSTRONG KITEESA (Administratrix of the estate of Yuda Kitaka
4. THE COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION
5. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHURCH OF UGANDA: DEFENDANTS
DECREE
This Suit came up on the 6th day of August 2019 for final disposal before His Lordship Hon. Justice Keitirima Eudes in the presence of Mr. Ssebabi Kenneth Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr. Ambrose Tebyasa Counsel for the 1st, 2 & 3 Defendants, Mr. Yusuf Kagere Counsel for the 5th Defendant, and in the absence of the parties and Counsel for the 4″ Defendant.
THIS IS HEREBY ORDERED & DECREED THAT:
i. The suit land is still vested in the estate of the late Evelyn (Evairini) Nachwa.
ii. The Land comprising Kibuga Block 7 Plot No. 749 and 750 formerly Plot 39 was fraudulently registered in the names of Bishop D Nsubuga, Rev, Y.S Kitaka and E. Kizito
iii. The 4th Defendant shall cancel the registration of the 1st, 2nd & 3 Defendants from the register of the suit land and register the same in the name of Evelyn (Evairini) Nachwa.
iv. The 4th Defendant shall return the Duplicate Certificate in respect of the suit Land to the Plaintiffs after effecting the said changes
v. An order for vacant possession is granted in favor of the Plaintiffs
vi. A permanent injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendants or anybody claiming through them from carrying out any activity on the suit land or alienating the same
The 4th &5th Defendants shall pay costs of the suit.”
Another High Court Ruling By JUSTICE JOHN EUDES KEITIRIMA reads thus;
“THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. 432 F 2003
1. DAN SSEMWANGA
2: JOHN KAJOBA
3. EDWARD BALUNGA
4. STEVEN NAKIBINGE : PLAINT
The administrators of the estate of the late Evelyn (Eva Nachwa and referred to as the 1, 2, 3 and 4th Plaintiffs respectively in the order they appear on the plaint).
VERSUS 15
1. LUCY NSUBUGA (Administratrix of the estate of Bishop D. Nsubuga)
2. CONSTANCE NALONGO IKIZITO (Administratrix of the estate of Esau K. Kizito) :: DEFEND
3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION
4. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHURCH OF UGANDA (Referred. to as the 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th defendants respectively 25 in the order they appear)
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE JOHN EUDES KENTIRIMA
RULING
Counsel for the plaintiffs applied that this court grants an order to the structures on the suit land which court decreed that vacant possession should be given to plaintiffs.
I find this prayer superfluous. Once a party is declared the rightful of the suit premises and is given vacant possession of the same, the Plaintiffs 3, 5 has liberty to use the land as she or he wishes. If she or he found.”
