Why court has directed Buganda Kingdom property cases consolidated

MUKONO - The High Court in Mukono has ordered the consolidation of all the cases filed by Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II against the Government over the continued occupancy of the Kingdom’s property in 12 districts without either purchasing, renting or leasing them.

This followed an application by the Kabaka through his lawyers, M/s Kirunda and Company Advocates and M/s Buganda Royal Law Chambers.

Allowing the application in a ruling dated February 18, 2026, High Court Judge Steven Mubiru said consolidation of the cases will reduce the burden on the court system by preventing repetitive litigation, save time and reduce costs.

“Having analysed the relevant factors including the balance of convenience, absence of prejudice, duplication of evidence, common parties, stage of the suits, potential for inconsistent findings and level or complexity if heard together or consecutively, I am satisfied that the requirements of Order 11 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, have been met in this case,” Justice Mubiru ruled.

Consequently, justice Mubiru has directed the Kabaka’s lawyers to file and serve the consolidated plaint not later than March 20, 2026, to avoid delay in the disposal of the matter.

“If the applicant (Kabaka) desires to file any reply, he shall do so and serve not later than March 25, 2026. The parties are hereby directed to file their respective trial bundles, witness statements and a joint memorandum of scheduling within twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing the last pleading,” Justice Mubiru ordered.

Justice Mubiru has fixed April 15, 2026, as the date for the hearing of the consolidated cases.

State against consolidation

Mark Muwonge, a senior state attorney from the Attorney General’s chambers, has opposed the consolidation of the suits, arguing that the suits sought to be consolidated are pending in different High Court circuits, namely Mukono, Masaka, Kiboga, Mubende, Lugazi, Luwero and Kampala.

He argued that consolidation in law applies where two or more suits are pending before the same court.

“Each of the suits concerns different parcels of land situated in different districts and registered under different blocks, folios and mailo registers,” Muwonge argued.

Muwonge argued that although the Kabaka refers to a common historical background relating to confiscation in 1966 and restitution under the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act of 1993, the suits do not arise from a single transaction or series of transactions.

He argued that each property arises from separate factual circumstances specific to the respective district.

“Each suit will, therefore, require separate documentary evidence, including land registry extracts, survey records, valuation evidence, administrative records and witness testimony from district-specific officials. In the circumstances, the application does not satisfy the legal threshold for consolidation, and it is just and equitable that the same be dismissed with costs,” Muwonge said.

However, Justice Mubiru ruled that consolidation is not the same as hearing concurrently.

“Both consolidation and hearing together essentially accomplish the same goal but in slightly different ways,” Mubiru said.

Justice Mubiru noted that while hearing concurrently will result in the court issuing two separate judgments in respect of the two suits, when suits for all practical purposes are effectively consolidated, the result is a single set of proceedings that maintains the legal distinction between the two suits but results in one judgment.

“For consolidation to be granted, the suits do not need to be identical, but they must have a complete or substantial similarity of the issues. If the issues of law or fact are similar, the court may consolidate them even if they arise from different transactions, provided it does not cause prejudice or confusion,” Justice Mubiru noted.

Kabaka’s case

The Kabaka asserts that he is the registered proprietor of several properties, which various government agencies, ministries and departments have occupied and developed with structures such as prisons, schools, hospitals and district or local government offices at various levels.

They include Bombo Military Hospital, Hospital Staff Quarters, Air Force Army Barracks, Air Force Secondary School Entebbe, the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Camp at Kitala and the National Military Radar Centre. 

The Kabaka contends that the continued occupancy and use of the property by the Government without any formal arrangement or paying rent has occasioned him and the Kingdom of colossal sums of money and deprived the Kingdom of the use of its property, which the Kabaka contends form part of the Kingdom’s assets which the state confiscated pursuant to the 1966 crisis and vested in the Government.

Following the enactment of the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act in 1993, the Kabaka contends that the said properties were returned to the Kingdom thanks to the agreement between the Kingdom and the President in 2013.

According to the plaint, the properties in contention are situated in the districts of Buikwe, Kalangala, Kayunga, Kiboga, Kyotera, Luwero, Masaka, Mubende, Mukono, Nakasongola, Rakai and Ssembabule, which Kabaka also list as respondents in the case.

The Kabaka contends that despite several efforts by the Kingdom to reach out to the Government to regularise its continued occupancy of the properties, the same have been ignored, prompting it to seek legal redress.

The Kabaka’s lawyers describe the Government's continued occupancy of the properties as trespass and unjust enrichment, which they argue violates several provisions of the Constitution.

They want the Government to either purchase the properties, acquire a lease, pay rent or return the same property to the Kingdom.