By Spy Uganda
The High Court has delivered a decisive ruling that effectively clears the Commissioner for Land Registration, Baker Mugaino, of allegations that have been widely circulated in the public domain. The ruling dismantles claims of wrongdoing and confirms that the Commissioner acted entirely within the law while executing binding court orders in the contentious dispute over land comprised in Kibuga Block 28 Plot 540 at Makerere.
For months, circles of misinformation and political propaganda have targeted Mugaino, accusing him of complicity, bias, and unlawful interference in land records. However, Justice Flavia Nassuna Matovu’s 12-page ruling demonstrates that these accusations were baseless and stemmed from a mischaracterization, or misunderstanding, of the legal obligations he was required to execute.
A Complex Case, But A Clear Verdict
The case arose from an application filed by Edith Nantumbwe Kizito, Erina Nankya, and Joshua Mukalazi, who sought to have Mugaino and the first respondent, Miriam Kuteesa, committed to civil prison for alleged contempt of court orders. The applicants further demanded cancellation of register entries, declarations of fraud, punitive damages totaling UGX 600 million, and costs. Justice Matovu rejected all these requests in their entirety.
The judge observed that the applicants were relying on a 2016 “settlement/compromise of decree,” which they claimed had superseded earlier judgments in the long-running dispute. Yet after analyzing the evidence, submissions, and legal history, the Court found that the applicants had not fulfilled their own obligations under that settlement, and critically, that the alleged compromise had never been validated or enforced by any competent court.
Supreme Court Findings Leave No Room for Doubt
A major turning point in the ruling was the High Court’s reliance on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in SCMA No. 20 of 2014. The Supreme Court had already established that HCCS No. 95 of 2009 was fully executed back in 2010 when the land was rightfully registered in the names of the first respondent, administrator of the estate of the late Musa Muganzi Kalanzi. Every subsequent attempt by the applicants to alter that position, including through consent orders, was deemed futile by the country’s highest court.
By law, such a Supreme Court finding is binding on all lower courts. Justice Matovu underscored this fact, making it clear that the legal status of the land had long been settled, and that the Commissioner had no option but to act accordingly.
Why Commissioner Mugaino Could Not Be in Contempt
The ruling offers a meticulous breakdown of why Commissioner Mugaino’s actions were lawful, justified, and in fact mandated by court orders.
1. He was enforcing High Court directives from 2017
In HCMA 1863 of 2017, the High Court specifically ordered the Commissioner to implement the original judgment in HCCS No. 95 of 2009 and warned him that failure to comply would amount to contempt. He obeyed the order, as any government official is legally obliged to do.
The same order has never been set aside or reviewed.
2. The applicants themselves admitted the Commissioner was not party to the alleged 2016 settlement
Even in their submissions, the applicants conceded that the Commissioner was not involved in the so–called compromise. Under Ugandan civil procedure, a person cannot be held in contempt of an agreement they never entered and were never bound by.
3. The alleged compromise had unresolved legal defects
The first respondent argued, and the court noted, that the 2016 compromise did not include all parties to the original suit, was not signed by a judge, and in earlier related proceedings, the Court of Appeal had declared all post-judgment settlements in this dispute to be of “no legal consequence.”
The High Court recognized that no party had applied to validate or set aside the alleged compromise, meaning its legal status was unresolved and unenforceable.
4. The applicants had not fulfilled their side of the bargain
Most damaging to the applicants’ case was the unchallenged affidavit evidence that the first respondent never received the UGX 750 million that the applicants claimed they had paid under the settlement.
Under long-standing evidentiary rules, unchallenged affidavit evidence is treated as admitted. Justice Matovu therefore concluded that the applicants attempted to enforce a compromise they had not honored.
This left the court with no choice but to dismiss the application and affirm that Commissioner Mugaino’s actions were proper, lawful, and consistent with the binding decisions of higher courts.
Judge Faults Applicants For Coming To Court With “Unclean Hands”
Justice Matovu’s ruling was frank: if the applicants expected courts to enforce rights arising from an agreement, they had to first demonstrate good faith and compliance.
Instead, they came before the court having:
- failed to pay the agreed UGX 750 million,
- attempted to rely on a compromise not validated by the judiciary,
- ignored binding Supreme Court guidance, and
- sought to hold the Commissioner liable for implementing lawful orders.
“It would be tantamount to an abuse of court process,” the judge noted, for the same High Court to punish the Commissioner for doing exactly what the earlier High Court ordered him to do.
Ruling Exposes Misinformation Campaigns Against Mugaino
For months, individuals with vested interests have circulated allegations that Mugaino acted irregularly in reinstating the first respondent on the land title or in handling the matter generally.
The ruling now confirms that:
- He was executing a valid High Court order,
- He was upholding a binding Supreme Court finding,
- He was not party to any of the alleged behind-the-scenes actions claimed by accusers, and
- He could not legally defy the orders he was mandated to implement.
The ruling thus provides an authoritative answer to the speculation: there was no misconduct.
Final Decision: Mugaino Fully Cleared, Application Dismissed
After reviewing all facts, authorities, and submissions, the High Court concluded that:
- There was no contempt of court by the Commissioner
- There was no unlawful reinstatement of the first respondent
- There was no basis for damages or penalties
- The entire application failed on merit
The application was dismissed with costs.
The ruling stands as a reminder of the importance of relying on facts rather than speculation — especially in matters as sensitive as land administration. Commissioner Baker Mugaino emerges from this ruling fully vindicated, having acted squarely within the law and in compliance with the directives of Uganda’s courts at every level.
Where there had been noise and accusation, the ruling brings clarity: the Commissioner did everything in the right way.
SEE FULL RULING BELOW!
