Special report by Witness Radio Team
In Uganda’s Kiryandongo district, a simmering land dispute has forced residents into a relentless struggle to reclaim ancestral land. They insist their family roots run deep in this soil, now swallowed by a vast agricultural estate purchased by an investor.
But the owners of Kisirizi Excellence Center (EA) Ltd, whose agricultural venture sprawls across 751 hectares, reject the residents’ claims. Renewed calls to return the land have stirred anxiety about the safety of their investment and the well-being of their farm workers.
“We fear violence. We fear for our investment and the lives of the workers on the farm,” Patrick Byabakama Kaberenge, the company’s managing director, told Witness Radio.
Kiryandongo District, nestled in Uganda’s midwest, has become a battleground for land disputes fueled by large-scale agricultural investments. In 2020, Witness Radio and its partners revealed that these projects had uprooted over 35,000 people from their land. The investigation spotlighted Kiryandongo Sugar Limited and Great Seasons SMC Limited, while in 2023, Somdiam joined the list of companies embroiled in controversial land takeovers for sugarcane cultivation.
Drawn by the district’s fertile soil, major agricultural projects have flocked to Kiryandongo, while oil development has only intensified the scramble for land. Against this backdrop, the Buhomoozi Parish dispute raises urgent questions: How are residents’ land rights safeguarded when new owners take over?
In Buhomoozi Parish, Kigumba Sub-county, the land dispute has ignited passionate demands from residents who say their families have called this land home for generations. Meanwhile, the investor now farming the contested property is seeking government protection for what he believes is rightfully his.
At the heart of the conflict are land deals involving businessman Mutebi Amans Kibibi and Byabakama with his partners. Residents allege these transactions triggered the eviction of over 500 people from their homes.
Documents seen by Witness Radio confirm that Byabakama holds a registered title to the property he claims to have bought from Mutebi. Yet residents challenge the registration’s legitimacy, arguing it now covers land their families have lived on for decades.
Asiimwe Moses Mwendwa, representing some affected residents, told Witness Radio that shifting land ownership and altered mapping have tangled claims and erased cherished community land.
Asiimwe maintained that the Church of God of East Africa and a property associated with Captain Omar Muhammed occupied separate parcels, with community land lying between them.
“We cannot now trace our origin. Our land was not titled, but it existed. People were living on it. When the rich men came in 2004, they evicted us and took it,” he said.
Asiimwe described the disputed land as a 500-acre stretch nestled between two registered properties: Plot 30 at Kisirizi Mixed Farm, owned by Captain Omar Muhammed, and a parcel at Kinyoga-Kaduku under the Church of God of East Africa.
Asiimwe recounted that the trouble began when Mutebi Kibibi acquired two titled properties that flanked land occupied by residents without formal titles. Rather than leaving the community land intact, Mutebi allegedly forced out the residents in 2014 and absorbed their land into a single, consolidated property.
Residents say this process wiped away the boundaries of land their families had known for generations, leaving them homeless and dispossessed. They allege that Byabakama and his partners later took over the property, insisting they bought a single registered parcel from Mutebi.
“Some people had occupied the land since the 1930s. It was terrible. People were evicted, some were beaten, and others lost their lives,” he told Witness Radio.
These allegations raise urgent questions about protecting customary land rights, the murky circumstances of land transfers, and the ethical duties of businesses acquiring contested property.
Uganda’s Constitution protects property rights and prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Land Act, 1998, also recognizes customary tenure, including rights that may arise from family and communal land arrangements. The application of these protections to the disputed property depends on the facts and the relevant legal records.
At the international level, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights establish that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts and address harms in which they are involved. The principles also emphasize access to effective remedies for people whose rights have been violated.
Desperate for justice, the affected residents petitioned the State House Lands Unit, urging the government to step in and resolve the dispute.
The State House Lands Unit, which handles land matters, became the residents’ last hope. They hoped this intervention would untangle the competing claims and determine whether the investor’s title truly covered their ancestral land.
Mr. Osaja Peter, a 61-year-old community leader and land defender who says he was born on the disputed land, told Witness Radio that a State House team conducted a site visit and made a decision concerning the dispute.
“A locus visit was done by State House and led by counsel Susan Abbo, and the ruling was that Byabakama should go back on the land that he bought,” Osaja said.
Yet the details and current status of the alleged ruling remain unclear.
Peter recalled that his grandfather settled in Kaduku II, Kigumba, back in the late 1930s. He claims his family lost nearly 70 acres in the turmoil of the disputed takeover.
“At that time, over 500 people were evicted from our land, which covered the three villages of Nyama I, Kaduku II and Kinyonga II. We just saw the bullets, and when people see bullets, they run away. Some have remained lame, while others died because of injuries. Many are struggling to rebuild their lives,” he said.
Mr. Byabakama, now 70 and once the acting deputy governor of the Bank of Uganda, said he and 30 partners founded Kisirizi Excellence Center (EA) Ltd with a vision for commercial farming, focusing on animal husbandry.
“We wanted to do commercial farming,” he told Witness Radio.
In 2006, Byabakama and his partners purchased land at Kisirizi, Plot 80, Block 9, measuring about 751 hectares, from Mutebi Kibibi.
According to documents reviewed by Witness Radio, Omari Mohamed had previously mortgaged the land, but allegedly failed to meet the loan obligations. Uganda Development Bank subsequently exercised its powers under the mortgage arrangement and sold the property to Mutebi Kibibi.
Before sealing the deal, Byabakama said he and his partners conducted thorough due diligence, inspected the land, and confirmed its boundaries with local leaders and community members.
“We spent around three days inspecting the land. Apart from the seller, Mr Mutebi, there was no other person occupying the said land,” he said.
Byabakama said an independent surveyor, Angellus Mawa of Geomaps, opened the boundaries in the presence of community members and local leaders, including then Kigumba Sub-county LC III chairperson Mary Matunda and other officials.
He explained that this careful inspection, combined with checks at the land office, reassured the partners that the property was safe to buy.
“Upon confirming that there were no registered encumbrances on the land at the land office, we agreed to buy the land from Mutebi,” he said.
Yet the residents tell a different story. They allege their land once lay between two registered properties, but was swept up into the land Mutebi acquired and eventually passed to Byabakama.
The affected families formally brought the dispute to the State House Lands Unit’s attention.
In a letter dated July 2023, Susan Obbo, Senior Private Secretary to the President in Charge of Land Matters, invited Byabakama to a meeting on allegations that residents occupied land between two registered properties.
The letter identified one property as Plot 30 at Kisirizi Mixed Farm, associated with Omar Mohammed, and the other as Plot 66, Block 9, at Kinyogonya-Kaduku, registered in the name of the Church of God of East Africa.
According to the letter, the petitioners alleged that Mutebi and Byabakama had acquired the two properties, Kisirizi Mixed Farm and the Church of God of East Africa, and incorporated the intervening land occupied by residents, despite the community’s claims that the land had previously existed as a separate area with identifiable boundaries.
The letter further stated that the petitioners did not object to the purchase of the two registered properties but alleged that the intervening community land had been incorporated into them, resulting in the eviction of residents.
In response to the State House letter, Byabakama disputed the allegation that he had acquired multiple parcels or participated in an amalgamation of community land.
In a response submitted on behalf of the investor, his representatives, H&G Advocates, said their client acquired a single registered parcel identified as LRV 1759, Folio 15, Plot 80, Kibanda Block 9, at Kisirizi, along Masindi Port Road.
“Our client does not know about the alleged amalgamation of two land parcels mentioned in your letter or the persons who allegedly occupied an untitled parcel of land between two alleged titled parcels. Our client bought a single parcel of land comprised in LRV 1759, Folio 15, Plot 80, Kibanda Block 9, at Kisirizi, Masindi Port Road, Masindi. This can be verified from the land office,” the response stated.
Byabakama also said that after the company began commercial farming, nine people complained that a previous owner had given them extremely short notice to vacate their homes before the 2006 purchase.
He said the company asked why the complainants had not pursued the previous owner in court but agreed to help them maintain peaceful relations with neighboring communities.
According to the company’s response to State House, the partners agreed between 2006 and 2009 to provide the nine complainants with household resources and some land for cultivation, with the assistance of local leaders. The company said it believed it had no legal obligation to settle the claims.
But this response left the residents’ deeper grievances unresolved, especially their claims about lost boundaries and the absorption of their land into the registered property.
A State House official, who spoke to Witness Radio on condition of anonymity, said the matter remained under investigation.
“People are saying the land had two titles initially, and that Byabakama’s title overlapped with the others. They have no problem with Byabakama; rather, they have an issue with Mutebi, who sold the land to Byabakama. The land in the middle was also titled with the larger part and also got taken,” the official said.
The official explained that authorities plan to retrace the boundaries of the old properties and compare them with the land now under Byabakama’s title.
“We are going to open the boundaries of the former titles and compare them with his title to find out the truth. We will inform you once the investigations are complete,” the official said.
Former Kigumba Sub-county LC III chairperson Mary Matunda, meanwhile, told Witness Radio that the alleged evictions and burning of houses occurred before Byabakama acquired the property.
She said local leaders knew the incidents happened when Mutebi owned the land and argued that Byabakama and its partners should not be blamed for actions that allegedly took place before their purchase.
Byabakama said the company coexisted peacefully with neighboring communities until residents reignited their demands to return the disputed land.
For the families caught in the dispute, this is about far more than lines on a map. It is about ancestral land, lost homes, shattered livelihoods, and community bonds built over generations that are unraveling.
“What we have suffered is enough. Let the injustices that occurred be solved,” the residents said, vowing to continue pursuing their claims.
For Byabakama and his partners, the dispute casts a shadow over an agricultural investment they insist was acquired lawfully and with careful due diligence.
Now, the fate of the land hangs on the State House Land Unit’s findings from its investigation into the tangled history of transfers and boundaries.
Until those questions are resolved, the residents’ demands and the investor’s defense remain in conflict, leaving the future of the disputed land uncertain.
