Residents of three villages in Buikwe District say they are living in fear of eviction, intimidation and arrest as a long-running dispute over 640 acres of land escalates, drawing ordinary occupants into a legal battle between two companies claiming ownership of the property.
The tension spilled onto the streets on Monday when residents of Lugala, Buyoba and Muiyibwe villages in Lugoba Parish, Ssibukumi Sub-county, stormed Lugazi Police Station demanding the release of colleagues arrested in connection with the disputed land.
The residents accused security personnel deployed on the property of restricting their movements, interfering with their gardens and subjecting occupants to intimidation despite an ongoing court process intended to preserve the land until ownership is determined.
More than 2,000 people are reportedly affected by the dispute, which pits Kiziba Estates Limited against Sir Henry Morgan & Associates Limited. Both companies claim rights to the contested property, leaving residents who live and cultivate there uncertain about the future of their homes and livelihoods.
For the occupants, the dispute is no longer simply a question of which company legally owns the land. They say it has become a struggle to maintain access to water, cultivate food and earn a living without fear of being confronted or arrested.
Kenneth Musamali, a resident of Lugala, described an atmosphere of fear, alleging that security personnel deployed in the villages had imposed restrictions that affect even routine household activities.
“In our villages, it feels as if we are under another government. We are under lockdown and are heavily restricted. Even to fetch water from the water source, we first have to seek permission. Even when we want to dig, we must get permission from the group of men deployed in our villages,” he said.
Musamali further alleged that residents were beaten when found carrying out activities on the land without authorisation from the deployed personnel.
“They move around the entire villages. If they find anyone doing anything on the land without their permission, they gather around that person and beat them. There is fear in our villages,” he said.
The allegations raise concerns about the impact of the dispute on people whose homes and livelihoods are tied to the contested property. However, the claims of intimidation and assault had not been independently verified by press time.
For Marion Kamusiime, a resident of Muiyibwe, the arrests have deepened the sense of helplessness among occupants who say they have little control over the competing claims to the land.
She appealed to the government to clarify ownership and ensure that residents are not punished for a dispute involving the two companies.
“As innocent residents and bibanja owners, we have been dragged into issues that are beyond us. The young men who were arrested had gone to work and earn a living. Someone simply going to make Shs10,000 has ended up being arrested,” she said.
Her account reflects the economic uncertainty facing residents who depend on the land for cultivation and casual work. For households with limited alternative sources of income, restrictions on accessing gardens or carrying out daily activities could affect their ability to provide food and meet basic needs.
The residents want the government and security agencies to protect their homes, gardens and livelihoods while the court determines the competing claims. They also question why occupants who are not necessarily parties to the ownership dispute should face restrictions and arrests while proceedings remain active.
“We are suffering despite the fact that the matter is in court,” one resident said.
Police confirm arrests as numbers remain disputed
Police spokesperson Assistant Superintendent of Police Hellen Butoto confirmed that 10 suspects were being held in police cells over the disputed land.
She said the suspects had been found on property that is the subject of an ongoing ownership contest.
However, residents reported that the number of people arrested during operations involving police and army personnel had risen to 20. The discrepancy between the police figure and the residents’ account remained unresolved by press time.
The arrests have intensified demands for an explanation from security agencies, with residents arguing that the existence of an active court case should not expose occupants to intimidation or arbitrary restrictions.
The circumstances surrounding each arrest, including the specific allegations against those still in detention, were not fully established in the available information.
The dispute has also moved beyond the confrontation at the police station, with several individuals facing proceedings before the Lugazi High Court over allegations relating to the occupation and sale of land claimed by Sir Henry Morgan & Associates Limited.
Court order offers temporary protection
The confrontation comes against the backdrop of an interim injunction issued by Lugazi High Court Assistant Registrar Dorothy Kyampaire in Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2026.
Kiziba Estates Limited had applied for orders restraining officials of Sir Henry Morgan & Associates Limited, the Attorney General and the Commissioner for Land Registration from selling, renting, subletting, leasing, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the disputed property.
In her ruling, Kyampaire granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from forcefully or unlawfully taking possession of the land.
The court also barred the respondents, their servants, agents and anyone claiming under them from evicting or threatening to evict bibanja holders, or interfering with them on the disputed property.
The restrictions are to remain in force pending the hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2026, which seeks a temporary injunction, or until further orders of the court.
“I find that the Applicant has made out a case for the grant of an interim injunction. The application is accordingly allowed,” Kyampaire ruled.
The order is significant for the residents because it expressly addresses their continued occupation and protection from eviction or interference while the legal proceedings continue.
However, the injunction is an interim measure intended to preserve the status quo. It does not establish that either company has conclusively proved ownership of the 640 acres.
The competing claims must still be resolved through the court process, and the precise application of the orders to the actions complained of by residents will depend on the circumstances and the terms of the court’s directions.
The latest arrests have therefore raised questions about how the court orders are being implemented on the ground and whether residents are receiving the protection contemplated by the injunction.
Arrests add another layer to the ownership dispute
Days after the interim ruling, three men identified as Ramon Hakim Rugumayo, Eriabu Kewaze Mwanje and Kenneth Kakumba were arrested and subsequently arraigned before the Lugazi High Court over allegations relating to the occupation and sale of land claimed by Sir Henry Morgan & Associates Limited.
Court documents indicate that Rugumayo was accused of unlawfully occupying 130 acres allegedly belonging to the company without permission on January 21, 2016.
Mwanje and Kakumba were accused of selling and unlawfully occupying land allegedly belonging to the same company.
The allegations remain contested. The accused, through their lawyer, Roland Kokas Odinga of Waymo Advocates Law Firm, rejected the charges, describing them as fabricated and linking them to the broader ownership dispute.
“We know that these are fictitious charges, in which they have slandered our clients. But the whole purpose of these fictitious charges is that there is a dispute over land. And that land is already a matter in this court, in the High Court, where ownership is disputed,” Odinga said.
His comments reflect the defence’s position that the criminal proceedings are connected to the unresolved civil dispute. However, the existence of an ownership contest does not, on its own, determine whether separate allegations of unlawful occupation or land transactions have merit. Those matters must be assessed through the appropriate legal process.
Court proceedings indicate that Mwanje, aged 73, was granted bail, while Rugumayo and Kakumba were remanded to Luzira Prison until Thursday.
The subsequent arrests of other residents and security guards have further heightened anxiety in the affected communities, although the full circumstances of those arrests remain unclear.
A community caught between competing claims
At the centre of the dispute are residents who say their immediate concern is not the commercial contest between the companies but the security of their homes, access to their gardens and ability to earn a living.
Their accounts suggest that uncertainty over the land has affected daily routines, with some residents alleging that they must seek permission to fetch water or cultivate their gardens.
The court’s interim orders provide a legal framework for protecting occupants while the ownership question is considered. Yet the confrontation at Lugazi Police Station indicates that tensions remain high despite the ongoing proceedings.
For the affected households, the consequences could extend beyond the immediate risk of arrest or eviction. Continued uncertainty over access to land can disrupt cultivation, casual employment and other activities on which rural families depend.
The dispute also presents a challenge for the authorities: ensuring that lawful investigations into alleged offences proceed without undermining court orders or subjecting uninvolved occupants to unlawful treatment.
By press time, Kiziba Estates Limited, Sir Henry Morgan & Associates Limited and the security agencies accused of intimidating residents had not responded to the allegations. Efforts to obtain their comments were ongoing.
The residents are now looking to the government, police and the courts for clarity on the status of the land and the limits of security operations in the villages.
Until ownership is determined, their immediate demand is for protection from eviction and interference, alongside an explanation for the arrests and restrictions they say have transformed their villages into places of fear.
For the more than 2,000 people reportedly affected, the outcome of the case will determine more than the ownership of 640 acres. It will also shape the future of families whose homes, gardens and livelihoods are tied to the contested land.
English 