Mukono Municipality’s acquisition of land for the expansion of the Katikolo waste-management facility has exposed a complex compensation process involving delayed payments, disputed valuations, banking challenges and landowners who initially declined to sell, raising questions about the municipality’s financial preparedness to complete the project.
The acquisition is intended to facilitate the expansion of the existing Katikolo landfill and the development of additional waste-management infrastructure, including a material recovery facility and a faecal sludge treatment plant.
A municipal land acquisition report shows that the council had secured 30.8794 acres out of the targeted 32 acres, with contracts entered into with proprietors amounting to Shs4.489 billion.
The figures in the report, however, point to several unresolved financial obligations. The document lists three proprietors under outstanding balances.
Jeremiah Mukasa had received Shs1.351 billion but was still owed Shs53.899 million, with the report attributing the balance to insufficient funds. Moses Kafeero had received Shs378.908 million but his compensation remained subject to a valuation addendum concerning a structure, while Hadija Nabulya had received Shs272.841 million and was awaiting an addendum for a dug well.
The report also indicates that Shs68.005 million relating to Twaha Lule and Zaitun Nantume had been approved but had not reflected on their accounts at the time of reporting. In addition, it identifies 31 parcels measuring 8.507 acres, with an estimated value of Shs1.103 billion, as not yet acquired.
These figures created an apparent contradiction with the position given during a recent engagement with Mukono Municipal Environment Officer George Masengere, who said all people whose land and plots had been acquired had been fully paid.
However, the Town Clerk Francis Byabagambi has since explained that the apparent gaps should be understood in the context of a lengthy acquisition process rather than as evidence that the municipality had simply failed to pay landowners. He said valuation took some time, while the municipality initially struggled to secure the land required for the project.
According to Byabagambi, the municipality first advertised seeking property owners willing to sell land to the government, but few responded. The council consequently had to approach landowners individually and convince them to sell their properties in order to support the project.
He said that after valuation was completed, the municipality faced another delay because payments to landowners who had agreed to sell required clearance from the Solicitor General. This, he explained, prolonged the process of settling some proprietors.
The report’s figures indicate that the documented exposure was at least Shs744.65 million when the Shs690.76 million estimated value of the 11 parcels specifically listed as outstanding is combined with Mukasa Jeremiah’s Shs53.899 million balance.
This figure does not include the amounts that could arise from the pending valuation addenda for Moses Kafeero and Hadija Nabulya or the handwritten figures appearing against some of the outstanding cases.
The municipality says some of the apparent payment gaps were caused by problems with beneficiaries’ documentation and bank accounts. Byabagambi explained that several residents who had agreed to sell their land lacked requirements such as Tax Identification Numbers and bank accounts needed to receive government payments.
He said Rita Kabali helped coordinate with such residents and encouraged them to obtain the necessary documentation. Byabagambi rejected allegations that Kabali was instead seeking kickbacks from landowners as a condition for their compensation.
There have been allegations that authorities demanded payments from affected property owners before their compensation could be processed, and that those who declined were not paid.
The claims have not been independently established and are disputed by the municipality.
Byabagambi also explained that some proprietors had already been allocated compensation but the money bounced back because of problems with their bank accounts. He said the funds subsequently returned to the treasurer and that the municipality had written seeking their re-release once the banking problems were resolved.
This explanation introduces another distinction in the municipality’s compensation figures: money that has been approved and processed is not necessarily the same as money that has successfully reached a landowner’s account.
A complete payment schedule showing the beneficiary, amount approved, amount transferred, date of payment and status of any returned funds would therefore be necessary to establish the municipality’s current liability.
The report also raises questions about differences in compensation values. Some of the figures vary considerably even where the acreage is relatively close.
Kibirango Yusuf’s 0.163-acre parcel, for example, was valued at Shs93.88 million, while Kiyanga Robert’s 0.049-acre parcel was valued at Shs4.41 million. Musiitwa Joseph’s 1.48 acres were valued at Shs222 million, while Livingstone Kamwasi’s 2.051 acres attracted Shs309.38 million.
Other differences are similarly notable. Siraije Ndaula Kitata’s 0.178 acres were valued at Shs10.68 million, while Nabunya Kistu’s 0.153 acres were valued at Shs13.77 million.
A 0.158-acre parcel belonging to Kwanuuka Paulo and Kaziibwe Steven was valued at Shs44.03 million, while Musiitwa Joseph’s 0.163 acres were valued at Shs93.88 million.
The variations do not, by themselves, prove that any valuation was irregular. Land valuation can differ depending on location, tenure, developments, accessibility and other characteristics. Byabagambi said the municipality’s valuations were based mainly on the location and size of the land but above all solely conducted by the Chief Government Valuer.
The explanation, however, leaves an important question for public accountability: whether the different valuation rates can be independently demonstrated through the underlying valuation reports and whether the same methodology was consistently applied to all proprietors.
The issue becomes particularly important because some of the landowners challenged the values offered to them. Senior Municipal Planner Hillary Murungi said some proprietors initially refused to consent to the sale because they believed their land had been undervalued. Others wanted the valuer to separately assess developments on their properties, including banana and cocoa trees.
Murungi gave the example of Mr and Mrs Mutegeki, whose payment was affected by problems with their bank account. He said their property remains strategically important to the project and will be given priority for acquisition using local revenue because it is needed for one of the lagoons.
The Mutegeki property also illustrates another challenge facing the municipality. Some of the strategically important land, particularly property close to the existing treatment centre, was not secured as quickly as some parcels located farther away.
Asked why land in critical locations had not been prioritised when it could directly affect the implementation of the project, Murungi said owners had declined to sell at the time because of disagreements over the valuation of their properties and demands for valuation of developments such as banana and cocoa trees.
He said some of these proprietors eventually accepted the offers after the municipality had completed earlier payments and would now be compensated using local revenue.
The municipality maintains that the delays have not fundamentally undermined the project. Murungi said the council has so far secured more land than it originally planned to acquire.
But the acquisition report presents a financial picture that requires further reconciliation. At the time it was prepared, 30.8794 acres had been secured against the 32-acre target, contracts worth Shs4.489 billion had been entered into, some proprietors still had outstanding balances, Shs68.005 million in approved payments had not reflected on accounts, and 31 parcels covering 8.507 acres remained unacquired at an estimated Shs1.103 billion.
The financial implications could also grow because the municipality now intends to use local revenue to acquire some strategically important properties whose owners had initially declined the offered compensation.
This raises questions about whether the council has a clearly defined financing plan for the remaining land and whether the additional expenditure was anticipated in the original project budget.
At the centre of the issue is therefore not simply whether Mukono Municipality has acquired enough land, but whether the acquisition has been managed in a financially transparent and equitable manner.
The municipality’s explanation provides legitimate reasons for some of the delays, including valuation, Solicitor General clearance, banking problems, incomplete beneficiary documentation and disagreements over property values.
It also offers a direct response to the allegations surrounding Rita Kabali, with the Town Clerk saying her role was to assist residents who lacked the documentation needed to receive compensation.
However, those explanations need to be matched against the documentary trail. The municipality should be able to demonstrate how much of the Shs4.489 billion contracted compensation has actually been paid, how much has been returned because of banking problems, how much remains outstanding, and how the Shs1.103 billion estimated for the 31 unacquired parcels will be financed.
The Katikolo project is expected to provide critical infrastructure for managing waste and treating faecal sludge in a rapidly growing municipality. Securing the land is therefore essential, but so is ensuring that the process used to acquire it is transparent enough to withstand public scrutiny.
The municipality says it has secured more land than originally planned and is moving to resolve the remaining cases. The acquisition report shows, however, that at the time of reporting there were still significant financial and administrative gaps. Whether those gaps have since been closed should now be demonstrated through updated payment records, valuation documents and a complete account of the municipality’s remaining compensation obligations.
ENDS.
English 