Fresh scrutiny has emerged over land transactions in parts of Mukono District after the Buganda Land Board accused a private real estate company of engaging in questionable activities on Kabaka’s land, exposing what analysts describe as a growing crisis in land governance, urban planning, and protection of vulnerable land occupants.
At the centre of the controversy is Jollo Quality Properties, a company accused of carrying out irregular Kibanja transactions, unauthorized land subdivisions, and developments allegedly inconsistent with approved physical planning standards across Nakifuma County.
In a strongly worded communication signed by Kizito Bashir Juma, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Buganda Land Board, the company was ordered to explain a series of transactions and developments the Board says may violate both customary and statutory land laws governing Buganda Kingdom land.
The concerns stretch across Nakifuma-Naggalama Town Council, Seeta-Namuganga Sub-county, Kasawo Sub-county, Kasawo Town Council, and Kimenyedde Sub-county, areas that have in recent years experienced aggressive land speculation fueled by rapid urbanization and demand for housing around Greater Kampala.
The Board says it has received “broader, concerning reports” alleging that the company acquired multiple Kibanja interests without paying Kanzu and other customary dues, unlawfully subdivided land into smaller plots inconsistent with approved layout plans, and ignored physical planning regulations and Building Control Board directives.
For many observers, the allegations point to a deeper structural problem that has quietly been growing across central Uganda, where commercial land dealers increasingly exploit weak enforcement systems, poor record management, and desperate land occupants to acquire and fragment land with little oversight.
Under Buganda’s land tenure system, Kibanja holders possess occupancy rights on Mailo land and transactions are expected to follow strict customary procedures, including consent from relevant stakeholders and the registered proprietor. On Kabaka’s land, the Buganda Land Board manages these processes on behalf of the Kingdom.
However, land governance experts warn that in many rapidly urbanizing districts, the formal rules are often overtaken by speculative business interests.
The consequences can be severe.
Unregulated subdivisions frequently produce densely packed settlements without drainage systems, road reserves, sewage infrastructure, schools, or public spaces. In several parts of Wakiso and Mukono, similar developments have later resulted in flooding, violent ownership disputes, and costly demolitions after authorities declared the structures illegal.
Urban planners say fragmented and poorly planned settlements also complicate future infrastructure expansion, making it difficult for government to establish roads, water networks, power corridors, and public health facilities.
Environmental experts warn that unchecked subdivision often leads to encroachment on wetlands and fragile ecosystems as developers rush to maximize profits from every available piece of land.
Yet despite these risks, enforcement agencies are often accused of reacting only after disputes explode into court battles or violent evictions.
The latest dispute highlighted by the Buganda Land Board involves a Kibanja at Lutengo in Kyaggwe Block 40.
According to the Board, Ssebuguzi Sulaiman filed a formal complaint claiming he is the lawful Kibanja holder, having acquired and occupied the land after purchasing it from a one Nakafeero.
Ssebuguzi alleges that while he was receiving treatment in South Africa, his wife and children sold the land to Jollo Quality Properties without his knowledge or consent.
The Board says the company’s director, Robert Kibirango, claimed attempts had been made to contact Ssebuguzi and that he had allegedly provided verbal consent to the transaction.
However, the Board rejected the explanation, arguing that verbal consent is insufficient under the legal framework governing Kibanja transactions.
The letter further notes that the transaction allegedly lacked mandatory spousal consent provisions applicable to family land and that the company reportedly purchased the interest from individuals who were not recognized as lawful owners.
More critically, the Board says no formal consent had been obtained from the registered proprietor of the Mailo land, namely the Kabaka of Buganda.
Land lawyers say such gaps can later render transactions vulnerable to cancellation, litigation, or compensation claims, especially where ownership is disputed.
But even as the Buganda Land Board raises concerns publicly, questions are emerging over whether some of its own local structures may have facilitated or overlooked questionable dealings.
On Tuesday, the Kyaggwe manager of the Buganda Land Board, Brian Namuyimba, reportedly stated that his office had helped “clear” the dispute involving Ssebuguzi and the company.
When pressed for documentation, a family meeting record was reportedly shared indicating consensus among some family members. However, there was no independent confirmation that Ssebuguzi himself had accepted the arrangement or been fully compensated.
Later in the evening, Kibirango reportedly shared screenshots of transactions and an agreement allegedly signed with Ssebuguzi on the same day. However, attempts to independently verify the authenticity of the documents were unsuccessful after the telephone number attached to Ssebuguzi’s name could not be reached.
The developments have intensified concerns over transparency and accountability within Uganda’s land administration systems.
Critics argue that land disputes in Uganda increasingly thrive in environments where institutions remain silent until media attention or public pressure forces action.
In many cases, complaints from ordinary occupants are ignored for months, while developers continue selling plots, advertising estates, and constructing buildings on disputed land.
Analysts say the silence or delayed response by regulators creates an impression that politically connected or financially powerful actors can manipulate land systems with little immediate consequence.
Mukono District has in recent years become one of the fastest-growing real estate corridors around Kampala, attracting dozens of private developers targeting middle and low-income buyers searching for affordable plots.
However, the growth has also brought an explosion of fraud allegations, overlapping titles, illegal evictions, and unapproved housing schemes.
Residents often purchase plots without verifying planning approvals, ownership history, environmental compliance, or customary obligations attached to the land.
By the time disputes emerge, some buyers have already built permanent homes or exhausted their life savings.
The Buganda Land Board has now directed Jollo Quality Properties to submit a comprehensive inventory of all Kibanja transactions undertaken in Kyaggwe Block and Mukono District, including details of third parties who purchased plots from the company.
The company has also been asked to provide evidence of compliance with approved planning layouts, proof of payments of Kanzu fees, and documentation supporting the acquisition of the disputed Ssebuguzi Kibanja.
Whether the investigation results in prosecutions, cancellation of transactions, or broader reforms remains unclear.
For now, the dispute has once again exposed the fragile state of land governance in Uganda, where booming real estate business, weak enforcement, and institutional contradictions continue to place thousands of land occupants and buyers at risk.
ENDS.
English 