Like in any sovereign land(democratic) public interest overrides individual interest. So being the legal owner of the land in question can’t stop the constitutionally delegated authority to take over your land if it is for the interest of the public.
Chapter 4 on Protection and Promotion of Fundamental Human Rights and Other Freedoms(1995) Constitution, under the subtitle of ” protection from deprivation of property” art 26 (2) (a) & (b)(i)(ii) stipulates that “26.(1) Every person has a right to own property either individually or in association with others. (2) No person shall be compulsorily deprived of property or any interest in or right over property of any description except where the following conditions are satisfied-
(a) the taking of possession or acquisition is necessary for public use or in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; and
(b) the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property is made under a law which makes provision for-
(i) prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation. prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property; and
(ii) a right of access to a court of law by any person who has an interest or right over the property”
Further Chapter 15 on Land and Environment, article 237(2)(a) (1995) constitution stipulates that “the Government or a local government may, subject to article 26 of this Constitution, acquire land in the public interest; and the conditions governing such acquisition shall be as prescribed by Parliament”
Again, Ch 227, s42 (1998) Land Act re-stresses those constitutional provisions above. On the contrary ss.43&44(1998) Land Act concerns control of environmentally sensitive areas.
There is also another section, that is, s45(1998) Land Act which concerns ‘land use planning and zoning’ in relation to Town and Country Planning Act (1951)T&CPA. SS.5& 6(1951)T&CPA address the situations when an area is declared for planning by the responsible Minister on the request of the local authority.
So Ugandans, as regards to your question as to what to do next by the agrieved party, he can appeal the decision , if unhappy, to the authority which has made it against him. In case of further disagreement,he can go judicial review.
One thing you should bear in your mind is that the rule of law is always distorted in nations with dictatorial tendencies(I am no sure if Uganda is one of them…hahaha). For instance any authority can maliciously invoke either a statutory or constitutional provision, if it were to be softer to you, to deprive you of any of your rights if it wishes to do so. However, if you detect any such malice, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you have been wrongfully deprived of your right(s). If you can prove that, then you have one more stumbling block to overcome, that is, the judge . Many people are of opinion that judges or judicial institutions in particular, in undemocratic nations are always hell bent to serve their employers. But that should not make you dispair because it is always better to try and err than not trying at all… what I mean is that no one should fear to have his case heard as a result of fear that s/he will no win it anyway.
Robert Ssenkindu
Ugandan Residing in Sweden
