The wheels of justice continue to turn slowly in a long-standing land dispute where Jackson Twinamasiko accuses Major Mark Wanyama of illegally grabbing his land.
What was scheduled to be a routine court session on Thursday at the High Court in Mukono turned into yet another reminder of how elusive defendants, absenteeism, and judicial reshuffles can complicate access to justice.
The case, which has dragged on for years, was set for a scheduling conference. This is a procedural step that helps define issues, settle facts, and prepare the case for hearing. However, the session was quickly derailed by the absence of key parties.
Following a recent judicial reshuffle, Justice Mary Kisakye Kaitesi now presides over the matter. She was expected to guide both parties through the scheduling process.
Present in court was the plaintiff, Jackson Twinamasiko, alongside his lawyer, Stephen Turyatunga.
The first defendant, Tyaba, and his appointed attorney, Joyce Lutaaya, who is in charge of his properties, were absent and unrepresented.
Major Mark Wanyama, the second defendant, also failed to appear in court. His lawyer, George Muhangi, informed the court that Wanyama was on the way, but by the end of the session, he had not arrived.
Despite the plaintiff and the second defendant’s lawyer confirming the scheduling memorandum, Turyatunga raised a concern. The Registrar of Lands, who was also sued in the case by the second defendant, had not been formally served and did not participate in the scheduling session.
Given the repeated absence of the first defendant, Turyatunga requested the court’s permission to proceed ex parte, meaning without the participation of Tyaba, in order to avoid further delays.
However, Muhangi countered that a copy of the memorandum had already been forwarded to the Commissioner for Land Registration for input.
He added that even without the Commissioner’s direct participation, the case could proceed and any consequential orders issued would be complied with.
Justice Kaitesi rejected the plaintiff’s request and emphasized that all defendants must be properly served, including the registrar.
She ruled that the case could not proceed until service is proven and all parties have had a chance to respond.
Turyatunga explained that they had tried to reach several lawyers formerly linked to the first defendant, but all declined service and stated they no longer had instructions to act on behalf of Tyaba and Joyce Lutaaya.
The first defendant has never responded to any summons from either court or police and is believed to reside in the United States, visiting Uganda only occasionally.
“The evasiveness of the first defendant continues to frustrate justice,” said Turyatunga after the session. “Every delay increases the burden on my client, who has been seeking redress for years.”
Justice Kaitesi maintained a firm position. “This court cannot proceed until all necessary parties are duly served and have responded,” she ruled.
She instructed the plaintiff’s legal team to explore all possible means to serve the first defendant and Muhangi to ensure the Registrar of Lands is also served. She then adjourned the matter to October 21.
At the centre of the dispute are explosive allegations of land grabbing. Wanyama, a serving UPDF officer, stormed the land with more than 15 heavily armed soldiers and hired goons, forcefully taking possession despite a standing court order prohibiting access.
In the process, property worth millions was destroyed, and several people were assaulted.
The case, centred around contested ownership of land, highlights the many challenges facing Uganda’s justice system. These include deliberately evasive parties and changes in judicial leadership.
