How ex-IGP’s kin lost suit to save 6,600-acre estate

The duo alleged that Ms Auma sold the land to Lt Gen Charles Otema Awany and Ms Beatrice Achola Odongo. They also wanted the court to declare that the sale of part of the family’s estate by Ms Auma to Gen Otema and Ms Achola as null and void, with the latter two labelled trespassers.

In the suit, it was alleged that in 2006, upon being granted letters of administration by the High Court to administer the estate of the late Oryema, Ms Auma allegedly sold part of the estate to Mr Robert Odong P’Duny without the consent of the beneficiaries of the estate. Once she realised that the rest of the family had learnt of the sale, the family claimed that Ms Auma proceeded to place a caveat on the certificate of title of the contested land in 2007. 

Gen Otema in 2009, during the subsistence of the caveat, purportedly sold 3,000 acres of land, while Ms Achola plucked another 3,700 acres.

First intervention

Ms Achola arrived at the deal with Ms Auma in 2013 under the special certificate of title obtained in 2011. This was despite the court earlier, on August 23, 2011, slapping a temporary injunction that restrained Ms Auma from selling or transferring the land.

Four years later, on February 6, 2015, the court delivered a judgment in which it ordered that the letters of administration that were granted to Ms Auma be revoked because of mismanagement of the said estate. It also ordered that all her deals on the estate, which were inconsistent with the letters of administration granted to her, were declared null and void.

The special certificate of title for the land in her name was cancelled, and the court ordered that the original certificate of title be reinstated as the valid certificate of title for the suit land. Ms Auma was also ordered to surrender an account of the property and income earned from the estate, while the Administrator General was also ordered to divide the remaining estate equally among beneficiaries, excluding those who mismanaged it.

With the special certificate of title cancelled and the original certificate of title reinstated when Ms Onen and Ms Atim sought to enforce the orders of vacant possession of their land, the court heard that Gen Otema and Ms Achola appealed the judgment, alleging that it infringed on their rights.

Twists galore

Ms Auma, however, denied the allegations, saying she was no longer the estate administrator. She instead claimed to be legally registered as the proprietor of the estate after she redeemed it from Barclays Bank Uganda Limited in an open auction. This was after the first administrators of the estate, who had mortgaged the estate to the bank, failed to pay the loan. Because she bought the land from the bank, Ms Auma claimed that she had the right to transact on the estate as she desired.

On the allegation that she sold 3,000 acres of the estate to Gen Otema, despite there being a caveat on the certificate of title, Ms Auma told the court that she only sold 900 acres. This was to Gen Otema, she further disclosed, adding that no caveat existed at the time of the sale.

Besides denying irregularly obtaining a special certificate of title, even when she knew that the original certificate of title was in the possession of Ms Onen, Ms Auma objected to claims that she sold 3,700 acres of the contested land to Ms Achola. She only conceded to selling 2,000 acres.

Gen Otema in his submission told the court that he had no knowledge of an existing caveat on the suit land. Ms Achola also said the General’s purchase of the contested land was lawful and free from any fraud.

She asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it was incompetent. She told the court that she purchased the contested land from Ms Auma and that her involvement and transaction in part of the suit land commenced in 2013.

This reportedly was when she was introduced to Ms Auma by brokers.

Ms Achola claimed that before she purchased part of the land, Ms Auma did not disclose a pending suit before court. Consequently, Shs1.11 billion was paid for the 3,700 acres.

Back and forth

After getting a special certificate of title for the land together with mutation forms and transfer forms to enable her to mutate off her land, it was until 2018 that the family attempted to evict Ms Achola. This compelled her to conduct a search in the Nwoya District land office. The search revealed that following an earlier court judgment, the special certificate of title in the name of Ms Auma was cancelled and changed to the name of the Administrator General.

Ms Achola contended that the cancellation of the certificate of title, which was in the name of Ms Auma before she transferred her portion of the land sold to her, was done in error.

In April 2017, letters of administration to the estate of the late Oryema were granted to the Administrator General.

Ms Achola, however, filed a High Court application in March 2018. The application sought an order that it review and annul its judgment of February 6, 2013.

It also prayed that an order be granted to Ms Achola to join as a defendant in this suit.

In April 2018, Gen Otema also sought the same since the court, at the time of cancelling the special certificate, was not aware that he had bought 3,000 acres of the estate and was not accorded the opportunity to be heard. The two applications were, however, granted.

In September 2020, Mr William Oryema (a child of late Oryema) and Ms Nancy Wilson Oryema (a granddaughter of late Oryema) applied to the court, seeking to be added as complainants in the case. They claimed they had been at the forefront of the fight to ensure the estate of the late Oryema was preserved.

They further told the court that Ms Onen was sickly and frail and always found it hard to travel and appear in the court. Ms Atim, they also disclosed, stays outside the country and could not ably come to court whenever the court sat.

Basis of dismissal

On May 13, Justice Phillip Odoki, the Gulu High Court resident judge, dismissed the case, providing several accounts that made it invalid. 

“At the time of the purchase of 3,700 acres out of the land by Ms Achola, the land did not form part of the estate of the late Oryema,” he ruled, adding, “Ms Achola is entitled to a transfer of 3,700 acres out of the suit land into her name and a quiet enjoyment thereof.”

Justice Odoki also ordered the Administrator General to transfer the 3,700 acres (plot 112 block 4 and plot 113 block 4) into the name of Ms Achola. He also issued a permanent injunction, restraining Ms Onen and Ms Atim and any persons from laying further claim of right on the 3,700 acres of land Ms Achola bought.

Justice Odoki said the complainants lacked the authority to sue the four in attempting to recover their land since they did not have the (administrative) powers of attorney over the estate of the late Oryema.

“When letters of administration have been granted, the beneficiaries cease to have locus standi to institute any suit to protect their interest or to preserve the estate,” he said, adding, “Given that the Administrator General was/is the administrator of the estate, he was the proper party with the locus standi to institute this case for recovery of the land against the accused and not the complainants.”

During cross-examination, Ms Nancy Oryema admitted that she did not obtain any authorisation or consent from the beneficiaries of the estate to institute this suit. According to Justice Odoki, it was not enough for a complainant who sues in a representative suit to show in the complaint that he or she has an actual existing interest in the subject matter but must show, in the complaint, that he or she has taken steps necessary to enable him to institute the suit.

“Much as the complainants stated their interest in the suit as being beneficiaries of the estate of the late Oryema, they did not name the other beneficiaries of the estate on whose behalf they instituted the suit,” the judge ruled, holding that if he “proceed[ed] to determine the other issues about the complainants’ suit, it would amount to null and void proceedings.”

The complainants could not prove their allegation that Ms Achola colluded with Odong Robert P’Duny to remove the caveat that Odong Robert P’ Duny had placed on the land since they failed to produce the said caveat to the court.

The court also saw documented evidence of how Ms Achola instructed her lawyer, Francis Gimara, who carried out due diligence by visiting the land and conducting a search in the land office before she purchased it.

Reactions

On Wednesday, Ms Oryema, one of the complainants in the case, admitted that the Administrator General returned the letters of administration (powers of attorney) to the family but did not explain who held them. She said “the family lawyers are appealing Justice Odoki’s ruling.”

Attempts to get comments from Ms Achola and the Administrator General were futile by press time. Gen Otema, however, told Saturday Monitor that he is relieved to see the back of the long-running episode.

“We had attempted severally to trigger a mediation with the family, and that is why we eventually gave up to allow the court to decide for us over that matter, and the decision was taken to court, and for that matter, let’s respect the decision of the court.”

[email protected]