Three Witnesses Pin tycoon for grabbing land from a Poor man|GMEPA NEWS

0
249

Augustus Bigirwenkya

Masindi.

Three witnesses were on Friday presented in high court at Masindi before resident Judge Frank Rugandya by Asaaba Jaiden, a resident of Kisita cell, Central division of Masindi municipality to testify against Masindi based tycoon, Tegras Byenkya in the case involving land grabbing.

Jaiden sued Byenkya, the proprietor of Tegeka Enterprises, a trading company based in Masindi accusing him of having processed and acquired a land title including his land equivalent to eight acres in Kisiita cell including where his family seats.

Jaiden therefore wants court to order Uganda Land Commission to cancel Byenkya’s land title arguing that he acquired it fraudulently. In the same case, Jaiden also sued Rajab Rugadya, a man who sold the suit land to Tegras.

AdeboLiciano, a resident of Kinogozi told court that, he was born in 1976 on the suit land until they left in 1986 with their parents and went to Kinogozi. He said that, the suit land belonged to late Rukalema, the father of Asaaba Jaden who was given part of the deceased’s estate.

He explained that, part of the suit land was a cattle path and accepted to show court where the boundaries are because the land is clearly demarcated. He added that, the contested land neighbored Rajab Rugadya and ByahukaErisa and that he has a copy of survey map that was done in 1960’s.

Another witness identified as Francisca Kamaya aged 90 said that, Byenka and Jaiden used to stay in harmony before Rajab Rugadya left after selling his land. She added that, the duo developed conflict over ownership of land that belonged to late Rukalema, Jaiden’s late father.

However; Justice Rugadya adjourned the court session to 2:00pm after lawyer Tugume prayer to allow elderly Kamaya to have lunch so that he could be able to ably give her testimony.

Eelier on, Counsel Tugume had asked court not to allow Counsel Simon Kasangaki to represent the defendant arguing that, it was unprofessional because at one time he had offered to mediate between two parties.

Tugume claimed that, Kasangaki had got vital information from his client and it was not appropriate for him to turn around to represent the defendants. On the other hand, Counsel Kasangaki vehemently denied mediating the two parties.

Justice Rugadya nevertheless ruled that, the issue raised by Counsel Tugume affects the integrity of the profession but allowed the court session to go on.

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY