NEWS EDITOR

BUGANDA Land Board (BLB) has put on notice all Kabaka’s subjects here and in the diaspora not to deal with one Barnabas Ndawula son to late Beatrice and Kato of Kaliisizo in Kooki, on matters concerning BLB, warning that whoever does so, does it at their own risk!
In Part I of this investigative story, we can exclusively report that, Barnabas Ndawula who happened to be the head legal department Buganda Land Board was sacked two years ago after high court found him guilty of forging Kabaka Mutebi’s signature in connivance with one Herbert Musiitwa to steal land worth billions which belonged to John Mulindwa.
Recently, while in Luwero, Buganda Premier Owek. Charles Peter Mayiga warned public against masqueraders who have cheated public of billions calling themselves Buganda Land Board Staff!

For starters, Buganda Land Board (BLB) a professional body was set up by His Majesty Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II to manage land and properties returned by the central government under the Restitution of Assets and Properties Act of 1993.
Such properties include among others; The Bulange, The Lubiri at Mengo, The Butikkiro, The Buganda Court Building, Kabaka’s official 350 sq. miles of land, Namasole’s 10 sq miles of land, Banalinya’s Land, Kabaka’s lake, Former Omulamuzi and Omuwanika’s Official Residencies at Mengo, Land Adjacent to The Mengo Lubiri on which Buganda Ministerial Houses used to stand, all Bassekabaka’s Tombs, Buganda Works Building at Kakeeka, Basiima House and Nalinya’s House at Lubaga. Furthermore, the assets under its mandate extend to include all those as outlined by the M.O.U between the President of Uganda and His Majesty the Kabaka. They include former estates of Buganda Kingdom Comprising of; Land in urban centers or towns, land where former administration headquarters i.e. Countries and Sub-counties where situated, land not claimed, utilized or occupied by any lawful or bona-fide occupant, land on Mityana Road (Jjeza Farm) and former Buganda Kingdom Markets.

Our investigative teams have it that, Barnabas Ndawula’s dirty games couldn’t be tolerated at Mengo, the kingdom headquarters. He was therefore shown exit.
Mengo originally thought this was enough punishment until it continued getting reports that Barnabas Ndawula is posing as BLB staff despite his sacking, to con more Kabaka’s subjects.
“We had to put the general public on notice to desist from dealing with Barnabas Ndawula on issues concerning Buganda Kindgom land. He is no longer at BLB, deal with him at your own risk.” Reads official statement from BLB to The News Editor Media.

On learning that he has lost it all since the public has been made aware of his sacking, like any dying horse, Barnabas has run to social media, using his Facebook page to cleanse himself of the accumulated dirt. He is doing his best to black mail BLB and It’s officials. Interestingly the public has ignored his blackmail against the officials asking him to instead eat the humble pie since there is a court judgement about his fraud!

“I call upon the hundreds of people who raised their complaints in my inbox to join me at the police station and we take these matters to the Katikkiro who may now be busy with other kingdom duty.” Writes Barnabas Ndawula on one of his face book posts after BLB warned general public not to deal with him any more concerning BLB issues because he ceased being their staff.

RESPONSES TO NDAWULA FB POSTS
Doreen Nabakooza: Never indulge our Kabaka in your fraud
Simon Madibo: You are a total shame.
Deogracious Kyabaggu: But (Barnabas Ndawula), how can you forge Kabakas signature?
Moses Kigenyi: Ndawula you should refund back the money with interest.
Nakulubya Alice: It is because you seem to be a conman. Barnabas Ndawula, you were dismissed with almost 20 others. Why is it that you were the only one who has been publicized years after your dismissal? The truth is that you were dismissed for fraud related issues that you are well aware of and you have gone on to con people claiming that you still work for Buganda land Board. Many people have reported you to BLB. This necessitated BLB management to come up with that public notice showing that you are no longer their staff. This is aimed at protecting the Kabaka’s subjects who may fall victim to your fraudulent schemes. 
Rita Kibombo: Pray for him to seek forgiveness for forging Kabaka’s signature.
Beatrice Namikka: Ndawula I strongly advise you to remove your case from social media as most of the trolls when it comes to the nitty gritty will not stand with you. They always disappear! The way I see it a lot of mess will come out on social media even mud slinging! You cannot win a war in the media. At the end of the day all of you in this real life movie will be damaged beyond retrieve! There are so many legal and administrative measures you can pursue and get closure on this matter! Asilise teyejusa!

WHEN BARNABAS NDAWULA FORGED KABAKA’S SIGNATURE TO CONNIVE WITH A LAND GRABBER
While still serving as BLB Head legal, Barnabas Ndawula reached an extent of forgery and misrepresentation when he entered a consent agreement on behalf of the Kabaka without instructions from the Principal.
In Civil Suit No. 2464, Ndawula connived with one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa and signed a consent agreement despite not being one of Kabaka’s Attorneys.
This agreement was later set aside through The Kabaka of Buganda vs Musiitwa (Miscellaneous Application No.729 of 2019) UGHCLD 67 (26th November 2019) because Barnabas Ndawula had no right to do so.

How did it come about?
In 2015, a one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa sought to steal land which belonged to John Mulindwa. He went to Buganda Land Board and connived with Barnabas Ndawula to form a scheme which included Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa going to court to force the Kabaka to give him a lease on Kyadondo Block 273 plot 4849, land which was already leased to John Mulindwa.
After Musiitwa going to court, Barnabas Ndawula together with lawyers from M/s Kasumba, Kugonza advocates without consent of the Kabaka or BLB went ahead and entered the Kabaka into a consent judgment on July 8th July 2016 agreeing to give Musiitwa a lease on part of this land measuring approximately 0.097 hectares and in the process deprive John Mulindwa of his land. 

Well knowing that he wasn’t an attorney of the Kabaka and therefore could not sign on behalf of the Kabaka, (At that time only Katikkiro Mayiga and Owek. David Mpanga could), Barnabas Ndawula illegally signed for Kabaka and informed court that the Kabaka had agreed to Musiitwa’s land grabbing and that the Kabaka was to fund Musiitwa’s lease application.
All seemed well till Musiitwa went to execute the consent judgment and Buganda Land Board refused saying it was a fraudulent consent judgment. It is then that Ndawula’s fraud was unearthed. How much millions if not billions did Ndawula bag out of this fake deal, it’s only God who knows! This is a prime land worth billions.

In his November 2019 ruling, Justice Henry I. Kawesa put aside the consent agreement. But this came at a cost to BLB in terms of time and legal costs.
In his wise ruling, justice Kawesa said, “It was evident that the persons who had the Applicant’s power of entering the consent judgment were the Katikkiro of Buganda (Charles Peter Mayiga) and the Attorney General of Buganda (David F.K Mpanga) vide Power of Attorney Registration No. 7934 of 2016 dated 2nd June 2016, and that neither the Applicant nor his Attorneys entered a consent as required by law.”  
Justice Kawesa said, the Applicant is aggrieved by the consent which obliges him to grant a lease on the land with multiple clients at no fee, that the suit land at the time of entering a consent had a running lease registered to John George Wamala Mulindwa for a term of 49 years with effect from 1969 and that he enjoys the right of first option to renew the said lease in accordance with the laws and policies of the Applicant. 
That the consent judgment was entered in total disregard to the law and policy which renders the same unenforceable. Finally, that the Applicant has a good viable defence to the respondent’s main suit and that he Applicant is interested in being heard.
“In rejoinder, the Applicant maintains that the he has never entered into any consent with the respondent and that it was wrongly executed by a person who at the material time was not a holder of Powers of Attorney to bind the Applicant.  That the signature purporting to be of the Applicant (Kabaka) on the consent does not belong to the Applicant nor to his lawful attorneys and that the signatures of the Applicant is that contained on the Powers of Attorney so attached.” Reads the ruling.
It continues to say, “The Applicant (Kabaka) only learnt of the consent judgment when he was served with the respondent’s application for execution and notice to show cause why the execution should not issue against him and as such, that the application is not an after-thought.”
“From the record, there was no agreement between the parties on what was signed, though the respondent’s submits that the Applicant’s lawyer was duly instructed, this instruction covered only representation as provided by Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, signing of consent is to be done by the parties or persons authorized to do the same. The consent judgment is hereby set-aside, as prayed.” Reads Justice Kawesa ruling which exposed lawyer Barnabas Ndawula’s fraud!
This angered Kabaka Mutebi hence sacking of Ndawula from Buganda Land Board.

During his time at BLB, the organization suffered unprecedented financial loss in terms of inflated legal fees. He was even soliciting bribes from Princesses to work on their files! (We shall come back with that in Part II of this investigative story).

RULING IN DETAIL:

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
LAND DIVISION
MISC. APPLICATION No 729 OF 2019
(Arising From Civil Suit No. 2464 of 2016)

THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA…………………………………APPLICANT

VERSES

MUSIITWA HERBERT MULASA……………………………RESPONDENT

BEFORE:      HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA

 RULING

This application was brought by Notice of Motion under Order 46 rule 1& 8 of the  Civil Procedure Rules and section 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act for orders that;-

a. The consent judgment dated 8th July 2016 and the resultant decree dated 20th December 2018 purportedly entered by the Applicant and the respondent in HCCS No. 2464 of 2016 be reviewed.

a. Costs be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of the application are contained in the notice of motion and the affidavit of Kizito Bashir Juma a lawful attorney to the Kabaka of Buganda and briefly are that:-
i. The Applicant is an aggrieved party as he claims a legal interest as the owner of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 4849 Zana which land is subject to the consent judgment sought to be reviewed and set aside.
i. The Applicant has never entered into a consent judgment with the respondent.
i. The consent judgment was erroneously and illegally entered by a person who had no authority in law to enter into a consent for the Applicant.
i. That leaving the consent standing will be an abuse of Court process

The facts giving rise to this application according to the affidavit in support are that; on the 22nd July 2015, the respondent filed a civil suit against the Applicant in the High Court seeking orders of specific performance, payment of mesne profits and general damages.   That a consent judgment was purportedly entered by the Applicant and the respondent on the 8th July 2016 in HCCS No.617 of 2015, however that the person who entered the said consent had no legal authority and as such, that the consent judgment was erroneously and illegally entered.   
It was his evidence that the persons who had the Applicant’s power of entering the consent judgment were the Kaikkiro of Buganda (Charles Peter Mayiga) and the Attorney General of Buganda (David F.K Mpanga) vide Power of Attorney Registration No. 7934 of 2016 dated 2nd June 2016, and that neither the Applicant nor his Attorneys entered a consent as required by law.  That the Applicant is aggrieved by the consent which obliges him to grant a lease on the land with multiple clients at no fee, that the suit land at the time of entering a consent had a lease a running lease registered to John George Wamala Mulindwa for a term of 49 years with effect from 1969 and that he enjoys the right of first option to renew the said lease in accordance with the laws and policies of the Applicant.  That the consent judgment was entered in total disregard to the law and policy which renders the same unenforceable. Finally, that the Applicant has a good viable defence to the respondent’s main suit and that he Applicant is interested in being heard.
The Applicant attached the following documents as evidence of his assertions; – Power of Attorney granted to the deponent, the Katikkiro of Buganda and Attorney General of Buganda dated 4th August 2017 after he had revoked those issued on 2nd June 2016 as Annexure ‘A’, a copy of a plaint Vide HCCS no.619 of 2015 as Annexure B1, a copy of a consent judgment as ‘Annexure B2’.
In reply, the respondent (Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa) through affidavit evidence disputed the above facts and avers that the consent judgment was not entered into by the Applicant and the respondent but the same was dully and lawfully entered into by the Applicant and the respondent and dully endorsed by Court, that the representatives of the Applicant and his then lawyers M/s Kasumba, Kugonza during the course of Court mediation vide Mediation Cause No. 367 of 2015 negotiated the terms of the consent together with him and his then lawyers and that this culminated into the parties signing the consent judgment dated 8th June 2016 in the presence of counsel for both parties and the Applicant’s representatives.   That this application is an afterthought having been brought 3 years after consent judgment had been signed and after he has applied for execution of the same.  
In his supplementary affidavit, the respondent avers that in an additional police statement dated 16thApril 2019 by Mulindwa Vitus Kato (Administrator and son to the estate of the late John George Wamala Mulindwa) which was witnessed by his siblings, that clearly stated that as a family they no longer had any claim over the suit piece of land based on the fact that the respondent is the lawful owner.
The respondent attached the following evidence to his claims; – a copy of a letter of transmission of the consent marked PE1, a copy of an application for execution dated 6th February 2019 marked PE2 and, a copy of an additional statement withdrawing the case marked PEX3.

In rejoinder, the Applicant maintains that the he has never entered into any consent with the respondent and that it was wrongly executed by a person who at the material time was not a holder of Powers of Attorney to bind the Applicant.  That the signature purporting to be of the Applicant on the consent does not belong to the Applicant nor to his lawful attorneys and that the signatures of the Applicant is that contained on the Powers of Attorney so attached.  He avers that the Applicant only learnt of the consent judgment when he was served with the respondent’s application for execution and notice to show cause why the execution should not issue against him and as such, that the application is not an after-thought.
Therefore, what is in dispute is that the Applicant to this application has never consented to the alleged judgment and neither his attorneys consented to the same.
In counsel for the Applicant’s submission, two issues were raised for determination by this Court, to which;-
1.Whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party within the meaning of the law.
1. Whether there are grounds for having the consent judgment reviewed and/set aside

Resolution of the issues. 
Issue1.
Whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party within the meaning of the law:
To find whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party, in the case of Re-Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd, 1977 HCB 312, Manyindo J as he then was defined as; “An aggrieved person is a person who has suffered a legal grievance, which has wrongly deprived him of something”.
In the case of Muhammed Allibhai versus W. E Bukenya SCCA 56/96, Court upheld the fact that; “An aggrieved person can bring such application in their own right”. (Emphasis added)
Further, in Robinah Matanda & Ors versus P. R. Patel & Anor Misc. Application No. 207 of 2017, it was noted that the burden is on the Applicant to prove that he has suffered a legal grievance.  To discharge this burden therefore, counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is a registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 273 plot 125 which is the subject matter of the consent judgment.
The Applicant in his affidavit in support deposes that the person who entered the said consent had no legal authority and as such, that the consent judgment was erroneously and illegally entered.  The respondent on his part submits that the earliest power of attorney by the Applicant is dated 2ndJune, 2016 and that it was executed after the plaint and the written statement of defence in the head suit had been filed in Court.  That there is no evidence that the power of attorney or the subsequent ones were brought to the attention of Court except that they were brought when this application was filed after close to 4 years since the consent judgment was executed.
Counsel for the respondent relied on the cases of; B.M Technical
Services versus Francis Ruganda 1997(HCB) where it was held that; “An advocate works on instructions of his client and where he does so, he/she binds the client”.
He also cited Olal versus Steel & Tube Industries Ltd HCCS No.7 of 2016 for the position that Court could not set aside a consent judgment when there was nothing on record to show that counsel for the Applicant entered into it without instructions.
According to Annexure ‘B2’ of the affidavit in support which is a consent judgment vide Civil Suit No.2464 of 2016 formerly Civil Suit No. 619/2015 Nakawa, dated 19th September 2016 it was ordered that; “Upon expiry of the current lease of the land/property comprised in Kyadondo Block 273 plot 125 situated at Nfuufu Zone, Zana Wakiso district on the 31/03/2018, a fresh lease of a term of 49 years for part of the said land measuring approximately 0.097 of an hectare shall be prepared by the defendant as a lessor in favor of the Plaintiff as the lessee at no cost”
“The Plaintiff shall remain in possession of the suit property after the execution of this consent judgment till his fresh lease in paragraph (a) above expire or as parties shall agree in the lease agreement for the said new lease”.
“That each party shall meet their own costs”.
Using the above order, the respondent instituted execution proceedings vide Execution Misc. Application No.08 of 2019 as annexure PE2 attached to the respondent’s affidavit in reply.
The 1st power of attorney were granted to Owekitiibwa Charles Peter Mayiga and Owekitiibwa David F. K Mpanga, the consent judgment was executed on 19th September 2016, and the fresh power of attorney granted on the 4th June 2017 revoking the earlier ones. This means that by the time the consent judgment was entered into by the parties on the 19th September 2016, the 1st power of attorney was still in effect and failure by the respondent to prove that one of the signatories are those mentioned in the power attorney renders the Applicant an aggrieved party.

Issue 2.

Whether the consent judgment entered into on 19thSeptember 2016 can be set aside
In the case of Kamanda versus Nakandi & Anor (Misc. App No. 0775 of 2017) Justice this Court cited with approval the case of Mohamed Allibai versus W E Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, for the position that; ‘Consent judgments can be set aside for fraud, collusion or for any other reason which would enable Court to set aside an agreement’.  

The learned judge went on to cite the case of Brooke Bond and Hebig T Ltd versus Malya (1975) EA 265; where it was stated that; ‘prima facie, any order made in the presence and with the consent of Counsel is binding on all parties to the proceedings or action and on those claiming under them………. and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud or collusion by an agreement contrary to the policy of the Court ….. or if consent was given without sufficient material facts or in the misapprehension or ignorance of material facts or in general for a reason which would enable the Court to set aside an agreement…..’.
Also in Ken Group of Companies Ltd. versus Standard Chartered Bank & 2 Ors, H.C.M.A 116 of 2012 (Commercial Court) per Justice Madrama citing the case of Hirani versus Kassam 1952 EA at 131 where the Court of Appeal held that; “A consent judgment cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud, collusion, or by an agreement contrary to the policy of Court or if the consent is given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts or in general for any reason which would enable the Court set aside an agreement.”
Therefore it can be seen that the consent judgment, like any other consents can be set aside on the grounds of;-
a. Fraud.
b. Collusion.
c. An agreement contrary to the policy of Court.
d. The consent is given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts or in general for any reason which would enable the Court set aside an agreement
In this application, the Applicant is alleging that persons who entered the consent did not have authority to do the same.  The Applicant submits while relying on order 3 rule 1 and 2 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules that the representatives of the Applicant negotiated the terms of the consent judgment.   However, that the wording of the order applies to appearances, applications and acts which include mediations and signing of Court documents. That in absence of evidence that the Applicant himself as portrayed in the consent judgment or his recognized agent were parties to the consent makes it void.  Moreover, that the consent judgment obliged the Applicant to grant the respondent a lease on land with a running lease at no fee, that the person with a running lease or his Administrators in case of death enjoys the right of first option to renew the lease in accordance with the law and policies of the Applicant.
Further, that the Applicant’s application for review of the impugned consent judgment is premised on the element of ‘any other sufficient’ which is a broader scope under which judgments, like this one may be reviewed.  Counsel cited the case of Linda Lucia versus Edith Nakandi Misc. Application No.464 of 2019 and submitted that the consent judgment in issue was issued in presence of counsel for the Applicant that the same was not binding on the Applicant because the person who endorsed it was not the Applicant nor his recognized agent within the meaning of law. That this amounted to collusion between the Applicant’s former advocates with the respondent.  That the consent judgment was obtained fraudulently as it portrays the Applicant as a signatory whereas not, that the consent was issued in total disregard to the law and that the practice of the Courts demands identification of the parties, that neither the Applicant nor his recognized agents were identified.
In reply, the respondent submits that it wasn’t the obligation of the respondent to cross check whether the Applicant had signed off the stated consent judgment, and that both the respondent and Court had to rely on counsel for the Applicant for purposes of that representation.
On the whole the Applicant has not raised any ground to merit review and setting a side of the consent judgment and that the application should be dismissed with costs.
Determination.
This Court has the discretion to review and/or set aside the consent judgment and to set aside the consent, I have to find whether there is justification for the same.
It was the Applicant’s submission that the Applicant’s former counsel in collusion with the respondent signed the consent without the Applicant himself or his recognized agent. That the Applicant has a good defence to the suit before this Court.
In the instant case, the ground for review and setting aside the consent judgment is that there is ‘any other sufficient’ cause. In rejoinder, it was submitted that the signatories to the consent judgment were four; – the Plaintiff, his Advocate as well as the defendant and his advocate. That the signature that purports to be for the defendant/Applicant is not his and that it does not belong to any of his lawful attorneys.   
In Blasio Konde versus Blandina Nankya C.A.C.A No.07/1980, it was held that; “it is important and necessary that any settlement be agreed to by both counsel in consultation with their clients. Only in that way should the settlement be binding on the parties”.
And also In the Supreme Court case of Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission vs James Mark Kamoga SCCA NO.8 of 2004 it was held that;
p. ‘a Consent can only be set aside if the consent was actuated by illegality, fraud or mistake. A consent judgment can be set aside on limited grounds’.
It was further held that;
“prima facie, any order made in presence and with consent of counsel is binding on all parties to the proceedings or action, and cannot be varied or discharged unless obtained by fraud or collusion, or by an agreement contrary to policy of the Court………or if the consent was given without sufficient material facts, or in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts, or in general for a reason which would enable Court to set aside an agreement”.
Underlining is for emphasis.
According to the evidence on file, it is alleged that the consent judgment was not signed by the Applicant himself or his recognized agents. Under Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, gives authority of representation by a recognized agent and advocates are recognized agents of a party to a suit, however on the authority of the Supreme Court case of Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission versus James Mark Kamoga (supra), ‘the consent must be made in the presence and consent of the parties’.  The consent was meant to be entered into in the presence of both parties who have agreed on the terms with the guidance of their advocate and before the trial judge handling the matter.
In this regard, I find that the consent judgment was entered contrary to the policy of Court. This was an irregularity on the part of the opposite party/Applicant and hence praying for the same consent to be set aside.
v. From the record, there was no agreement between the parties on what was signed, though the respondent’s submits that the Applicant’s lawyer was duly instructed, this instruction covered only representation as provided by Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, signing of consent is to be done by the parties or persons authorized to do the same.
w.    The consent judgment is hereby set-aside, as prayed.

…………………………

Henry I. Kawesa
JUDGE
26/11/19

Mr. Mukwaya Edward;  Counsel for the Applicant.
Ms. Ketra Nasimbwa; Counsel for the Respondent.

Wait for Part II of this story. For comments/views about this story, sms on 0792 735 159

NEWS EDITOR

NAMIREMBE Diocesan Vicar Rev. George William Kyeyune has denied media reports that he witnessed the evictions at St. Peters Church Ndeeba as alleged. Ndeeba Church demolition took place on August 10th 2020.
Talking to News Editor Online, Rev. Kyeyune has called upon God’s people to ignore such reports referring them to as  false, wholly malicious with the intention to divert church from demanding for justice over the demolished House of God which happened at midnight.
This was in reference to a Daily Monitor article by Andrew Bagala published on Tuesday August 25th 2020 titled, “New details show Ndeeba clergy signed eviction notice.”
The story reads, “Rev. George William Kyeyune was among the church officials who signed the inventory record of the eviction.”
To clear the air Rev. Kyeyune told us, “In March this year, I got a call from Mr. Patrick Wakonyi who was in charge of church development at St. Peters Church Ndeeba reporting how iron bar men together with gun wielding security officers had raided the church premises demolishing the school and kiosks found on the church land. He demanded for  urgent help as the clergy In charge of the church since he had been thrown out of his house.”
On receiving this call, Kyeyune asked Wakonyi whether Court Bailiffs had presented to them a copy of the court ruling before demolition to which he said no.
“I quickly approached Mr. Mpoza the Estates Chairman to find out whether he was aware of what was going on in Ndeeba. He said, “IAM totally green.” I then ran to Namirembe Diocese top leaders for a way forward but because they were unaware  they could not make a decision.I was there and then sent to study the situation and also secure a copy of the ruling from the Bailiffs.” Rev. Kyeyune told this Website.
By the time Kyeyune drove from Namirembe Cathedral to St. Peters Ndeeba, almost everything had been demolished apart from the church which they returned and demolished at night on August 10th 2020.
In the car,Kyeyune was with the Diocese Estate’s lawyer and another unidentified lady who is also staff at the Diocese.
On reaching Ndeeba, Rev. Kyeyune told us that, “Mr. Wakonyi came running towards our car and pointed at a muscular man, who I later came to know was Moses Kirunda of Spearlink Auctioneers and Court Bailiffs. He commanded the demolition of our school and the kiosks. Every one was in fear, children were crying and business owners were distraught. All this went on without the knowledge of Namirembe Diocese leadership.”
When he approached Kirunda, “I identified himself as the Diocesan Vicar and demanded for a copy of the High court ruling. I could not stop any demolition because apart from the church, everything was already down.”
The feared Kirunda who was guarded like a war General backed at this man of God calling him a thief. It was as if he was alerting his boys to work on him.
Sensing danger, Rev. Kyeyune said, “I have come in peace. You have already carried out your demolition and as church, we were not informed. I have only been sent by the Church leadership at Namirembe where this church falls, kindly avail me a copy of the court ruling so that We can appeal.”
Kirunda who is now behind  bars over demolished Ndeeba church agreed to handover a copy of high court ruling to Rev. Kyeyune on condition that he confirms by a signature that he has received it.
“Signing because I have received a copy of the ruling? What was wrong with that? Yes I agreed and I delivered it to the Diocese leadership. It helped us to file an appeal. Anything I signed apart from that, let Daily Monitor produce the evidence.” Rev. Kyeyune tasked Namuwongo based media house.
According to court documents, Kirunda says, “I Kirunda Moses, t/a Spearlink Auctioneers and Court Bailiffs, do confirm that on the 6th day of March 2020, I fully evicted all the occupants found on Plot no. 749 and 750 Block 7 formerly Plot No. 39. I also evicted one reverend from the church area.”
Kyeyune, a very humble and brilliant clergy said there is no way church leadership could witness demolition yet the same Kirunda boasts of throwing out Rev. Kayemba and also conditioning him to sign for a copy of the court ruling.
“All this is drama and am shocked, that a prestigious media house can publish such lies without evidence.” Namirembe Vicar told us.
A few days ago, Judicial Service Commission (JSC) officials met Namirembe officials, among them was Rev. Kyeyune.
On this he told us, “When they came here, they talked about the same allegations that I signed the eviction order. I asked them for proof. They failed. Now Daily Monitor is also spreading such lies.”
Meanwhile, Church leadership is in higher stages to appeal against the courts ruling over the Ndeeba Church matter.