Tooro Kingdom Faces Fresh Suit Over Shs1.7bn Properties


abortion geneva;”>The court case comes at a time when a section of Kingdom leaders led by acting Prime Minister Amos Mugisa are under fire from clan leaders for fraudulently selling Tooro’s properties to raise money for the wedding of Princess Ruth Komuntale in November this year.

online geneva;”>Tooro’s side of the story remains unclear as its yet to file its defence.

Based at Metropole House, Entebbe Road and represented by Sibendire, Tayebwa & Co. Advocates, CIE are requesting court to issue an eviction order and also compel the Kingdom to pay general and exemplary damages and costs of the suit.

“The claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for trespass, conversion, mesne profits and interest thereon, eviction order and restitution thereof, declarations and orders that their actions as set out in this Plaint are ultra vires the Constitution of the Republic of UGANDA AND THAT OF THE Kingdom of Tooro and the Laws of Uganda, a permanent injunction, general and exemplary damages and costs of the suit,” the suit reads in part.

“The Plaintiff (CEI) will aver that it is the lawful owner of the Suit land and structures thereon valued at Shs1.7 billion and that it also holds the leasehold title of Plot 35, Burahya Block 72, Toro, the Suit land, comprised in Block 72 whose registered proprietor is the 1st Defendant (Toro Kingdom).”

The company contends that under a sale agreement in 1997, it acquired the Suit land from one Peninah Gunn, the lease title holder of Plot No.13, Burahya, Block 72, Tooro wherefrom the Suit land was sub-divided.

Court documents show that in 1997 Tooro consented to the sale transaction upon an application by the said Peninah Gunn and in 1999 CEI paid the pre-requisite commission on the sale transaction of 15% of the purchase price to enhance the sub-division of the Suit land Plot 13 as the seller, Peninah Gunn had at all material times failed to effect payment of the same.

Tooro, according to court documents obtained by Chimpreports, then through its land Board wrote to the Chief Registrar of Titles consenting to the sub-division of the Suit land from Plot 13 on May 14. 1999.

The said sub-division though completed, the Plaintiff could not obtain its leasehold title due to the Commissioner, Lands Registration insistence that prove of ground rent had to attached forthwith before any title could be made in the company’s names.

CEI was now torn between the two; to pay ground rent to Uganda Land Commission and obtain its leasehold title, or pay ground rent to the Kingdom who neither could nor can issue a leasehold title should the terms of the said consent be enforced; in brief, Tooro does not have the ability to issue a title deed.

Mugisa and other top Tooro officials, well knowledgeable of the above fact, documents show, did cause the illegal and unlawful repossession of the Suit land purportedly for and on behalf of the Kingdom and accordingly wrote to CEI on February 2, 2012 and illegally rented out the company’s property to Kabarole Hillside Secondary School.

“At all material times, the school did profit and benefit, though for a fee, from Kingdom officials’ acts, deeds and or omissions. At all material times, the Kingdom did profit and benefit from the proceeds,” the suit reads.

“At all material times, the acts, deeds and or omissions of the Kingdom and it’s officials were and are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic if Uganda and that of the 1st Defendant and relevant Laws of Uganda, most particularly, the CONSENT Judgments vide HCT-0`-CV-CS-0036 OF 2010 & HCT-01-CV-CS-0006 OF 2011 relating to the management of the Kingdom’s affairs and assets.”

CEI maintains the said acts, deeds and or omissions amount to trespass on private property, conversion and forceful acquisition without adequate compensation to which all Defendants are liable.

CEI says that on becoming aware of the said acts of the Kingdom and its officials did write a notice of intention to sue to them only to receive a reply depicting their fraudulent intentions choosing to comply with the requirements of the Commissioner Land Registration and procure its leasehold title deed and lodged a caveat on Toro’s title deed comprising Plot 1 Block 72 whereof the Suit land is situated.

The company promises to aver that at the conduct of the Kingdom it has suffered non use of its portion of the Suit land and thus seek for menses profits.

“The Plaintiff also avers that due to the Defendants conduct, it has suffered mental anguish, disappointment, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of business. The Plaintiff shall seek general and exemplary damages.”


Header advertisement
To Top