E MENGO MU BUZIBA EP21: TRUE AS IT IS EQUALLY SAD, KABAKA RONALD MUTEBI IS TOTALLY IN THE WRONG

[@stanleyanthony9850]

@team from the very start of this program and Mengo leaks l always pointed out that we need to separate Kabaka from the person Prince Ronald Mutebi. The fact rotates around him. He made a mistake and he should stand up for it. We might try to hide but the late Queen was called to order by her subjects and she had to pay taxes! My friends we are all going to die some day with honors or not. But we do a disservice to our children and they will laugh at our stupidity

[@rpduzzit6129]

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@rpduzzit6129]

Yumbe district watching, happy I have introduced young NGO workers here in Bidibidi refugee camp

[@sarahkawuma2706]

Am glad to see you again investigation team work. Nze nababuziza ekibuzo nti the tenant landlord naye mukulu Tatya amugate kulist yaffe??? Kubanga musango Prince jjuko yagwogedde dda😂😂😂😂😂

[@Freder-en9th]

Good question

[@judithmatovu3528]

@kiyimbajoseph, to help some of us understand your lectures better, would you organize some talks to enlighten us on what administrative roles (if any,) the Kabaka of Buganda plays. Throw more light on the administrative roles played by Katikkiro and his team. Point out to us how easy/difficult it is for Mengo officials to "intentionally commit atrocities to soil the Kabaka's name". In your opinion, is Kabaka Mutebi in charge/control of what is going on.in.Buganda?

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Stanley Good mng. I think we need to organise some days and we do something similar to the Oprah Winfrey talk shows. We need to have these days paid for by the viewers at a simple fee so that they can come and ask what ever questions they would want and we have them answered per se. We need to organise for the numbers

[@judithmatovu3528]

@@jjuukojosephkiyimba Good. But before that, would you and the whole Investigator team enlighten me on why this "sudden change of goal posts"? I remember very vividly how the Investigator team has been putting it across that all, or most of the land problems in Buganda have been spearheaded by the likes of Katikkiro Mayiga, Kiwalabye Male, and others, using their fake Buganda Land Board. You went ahead and gave us the chronology of the current "Buganda Land Board" which you effectively showed us how it's a shum body which shouldn't have handled any land in Buganda be it public land, Kabaka's land (which he holds in trustship), his own personal land, or any other mailo land. We learnt of how Namasole 's land was cheated by the same BLB. You effectively showed us how the land that belonged to Ssekabaka Chwa, Ssekabaka Mwanga has fraudulently been "stolen and sold" by the Mengo clique. We even heard how the Boy Scouts of Uganda were almost deprived of their camping site in Kaazi. We believed you wholeheartedly. Gentlemen, you went ahead and showed us how Kabaka Mutebi has not been spared and has been a victim of land robbery by the Buganda Land Board. You expressed feeling that he is not aware of the many sinister actions by the shum BLB. We heard you mention that Mayiga team are intentionally embarrassing the Kabaka. In your discussions you implied the Kabaka's hands being tied However, in a very shocking manner, you have turned your guns from the Buganda Land Board, Katikkiro Mayiga, Kiwalabye Male to Kabaka Mutebi, whom you have humiliated and labeled in the worst way possible. As of now, I don't know; you might have succeeded in portraying Kabaka Mutebi as a scrouplous, selfish Kabaka who has turned against his people! Now, which of your two versions of presentation should we take? Is it Katikkiro Mayiga, Kiwalabye Male, and Buganda Land Board to blame; or it's Kabaka Mutebi to continue to facing the wrath of your tongues?

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

@@judithmatovu3528 Both hold water.Previously the evidence was pointing to the Kakamega. I have read your submissions and you agree that the Kabaka was implicated in this Tamale issue. So both are fine.

[@ssamula33]

Don’t forget to remind us the list of all involved in the scandals of mengo and lands. Can we add another person then!!!

[@kabugobrian9446]

But has Mr Tamale ever approached the Kisosonkole’s over matters regarding that disputed piece of land? As far as I know, there was a lot of mess done by the same family, in the administration of the late KLB Kisosonkole’s estate. I’d therefore advise that before you apportion blame to Ronald Mugenda Mutebi 2nd, check KLB family as well, they could be reason for that kavuyo.

[@judithmatovu3528]

Thanks for pointing this one out. Maybe it will help reduce the bias with which people are handling this issue.

[@kabugobrian9446]

I come from the same mentioned family and it’s a complete mess. The administrators used to make double transactions on a lot of people’s lands without the owners knowledge. So people have to think twice before condemning Muwenda Mutebi.

[@judithmatovu3528]

@@kabugobrian9446 Thanks so much for coming out on this issue. I wish you people who have the other side of the story come out and give the world necessary details.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

@@judithmatovu3528 Have you taken time to look at the evidence. that backs this up? If you could you would help advise us with legal reason what best practice to apply.

[@ssamula33]

I have been saying let the ownership take his property. Let’s not even waste time and exaggerating more of issues on other property.

[@julienambatya6]

Good morning mr Stanley Ndawula,, and the team . Mr Stanley sir, i need your help together with my mom. She invested 5m Uganda shillings to One coin/bit coin, in 2018 but until now she has get anything from them. When i told her about you, she told me to ask you and assess about these people. When she talk with them , they told her that the government doesn't allow crypto currency to work in UGA. And they are not paying back her money. What should we do?😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Facts About Paying With Cryptocurrency 1.Cryptocurrency payments do not come with legal protections. Credit cards and debit cards have legal protections if something goes wrong. For example, if you need to dispute a purchase, your credit card company has a process to help you get your money back. Cryptocurrencies typically do not come with any such protections. 2.Cryptocurrency payments typically are not reversible. Once you pay with cryptocurrency, you can usually only get your money back if the person you paid sends it back. Before you buy something with cryptocurrency, know the seller’s reputation, by doing some research before you pay. 3.Some information about your transactions will likely be public. People talk about cryptocurrency transactions as anonymous. But the truth is not that simple. Cryptocurrency transactions will typically be recorded on a public ledger, called a “blockchain.” That’s a public list of every cryptocurrency transaction - both on the payment and receipt sides. Depending on the blockchain, the information added to the blockchain can include details like the transaction amount, as well as the sender’s and recipient’s wallet addresses. It’s sometimes possible to use transaction and wallet information to identify the people involved in a specific transaction. And when you buy something from a seller who collects other information about you, like a shipping address, that information can also be used to identify you later on.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

1.Cryptocurrencies aren’t backed by a government or central bank. Unlike most traditional currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, the value of a cryptocurrency is not tied to promises by a government or a central bank. 2.If you store your cryptocurrency online, you don’t have the same protections as a bank account. Holdings in online “wallets” are not insured by the government like U.S. bank deposits are. 3.A cryptocurrency’s value can change constantly and dramatically. An investment that may be worth thousands of dollars today could be worth only hundreds tomorrow. If the value goes down, there’s no guarantee that it will rise again. 4.Nothing about cryptocurrencies makes them a foolproof investment. Just like with any investment opportunity, there are no guarantees. 5.No one can guarantee you’ll make money off your investment. Anyone who promises you a guaranteed return or profit is likely scamming you. Just because the cryptocurrency is well-known or has celebrities endorsing it doesn’t mean it’s a good investment. 6.Not all cryptocurrencies or the companies behind them are the same. Before you decide to invest in a cryptocurrency, look into the claims the company is making. Do an internet search with the name of the company and the cryptocurrency with words like review, scam, or complaint. Look through several pages of search results.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Investments tied to cryptocurrencies and digital assets were cited by state securities regulators as the top threat to investors in 2021, according to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). So be ware

[@bunjosimon1804]

Hello Ndugu please let mulangira elaborate on how each land owner or chapa holder must know of how land has been changing hands up to the current owner.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

This is addressed by effect 68 of the Registration of Titles Act Cap 230. Let me put it here below 68. History of various dealings affecting land to be preserved Such references shall be noted in the Register Book and on instruments filed hereunder as will allow the title to be traced either downwards from or upwards to the original certificate of title; but it shall not be necessary in any certified copy of any grant, certificate or instrument to insert such references; and every such copy shall be deemed complete, notwithstanding the omission of such references.

[@jimcliff9093]

Ebigenda mu maaso biraga bulunji ensonga lwaki 1966 crisis yalina okubeerawo. Bajjajjaffe abo bonna baali bakumpanya era abayaaye abataalina mazima mu nkola zaabwe. Olaba ne Kabaka ateeka envumbo ku ttaka naye ly'amanyi nti ddala si lirye!

[@bikimbwaassad4271]

In lecture room already

[@busingyeapollogeoffrey7042]

👏

[@musajjuuko9416]

Ndugu Ndawula, no mulangira jjuuko, saako Mr Tatya bwebaale kutulabula kukibba ttaka. Naye kakamega ne Sarah kulata basaana kabazi kumutwe.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Please do not use impuniy to sort issues.Lets be patient and we will finally have these issues settled in courts of law.Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. So lets be the few who will stand up for justice

[@judithmatovu3528]

@kiyimbajoseph, when you once read to us the Kabaka 's application; I think I heard mention of "bona fide occupant". Didn't or shouldn't the clause about bona-fide occupants apply to Kabaka Mutebi? And if he used this clause in his application for consideration to normalize his stay there; would it be fair to say he knowingly robbed Tamale's land?

[@stanleyanthony9850]

If someone knowingly commits fraud then he is liable under fraudulent misrepresentation and its fraud simple. No one is above the LAW! Mabitizi was told to deposit ugx 1 billion in court to answer a simple question about land was that fair???

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

In Marden v Dorthy, this Court held that a forged deed was void at its inception, finding it to be a "spurious or fabricated paper" (160 NY 39, 47 [1899]), a forgery characterized by "the fraudulent making of a writing to the prejudice of another's rights" (id. at 53). As Marden noted, a forged deed lacks the voluntariness of conveyance (see id. at 54). Therefore, it holds a unique position in the law; a legal nullity at its creation is never entitled to legal effect because "[v]oid things are as no things" (id. at 56). A forged deed, however, cannot convey good title, and "[i]t is legally impossible for any one [sic] to become a bona fide purchaser of real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title, and that is this case" (id. at 56; see also Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104, 105 [1st Dept 2001] ["A forged deed is void and conveys no title"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 15.01 ["A purchaser who takes title through a forged deed cannot be a bona fide purchaser, even if the purchaser did not have knowledge of the forgery"]). New York's rule reflects a general well-established principle of real property law (see e.g. Harding v Ja Laur Corp., 20 Md App 209, 214 [Md Ct Spec App 1974] ["A forged deed . . . is void ab initio"]; Scott D. Erler, D.D.S. Profit Sharing Plan v Creative Fin. & Investments, L.L.C., 349 Mont 207, 214 [2009] ["forged conveyances are void ab initio and do not transfer title"]; Brock v Yale Mortg. Corp., 287 Ga 849, 852 [2010] ["we have also long recognized that a forged deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee"]; Akins v Vermast, 150 Or App 236 n 7 [Or Ct App 1997] "If fraud is 'in factum,' such as a forged deed or a situation analogous to forgery, the deed is void ab initio and will not support subsequent title in any person"]; First Nat. Bank in Albuquerque v Enriquez, 96 NM 714, 716 [1981] ["a forged deed is a void deed and transfers no interest"]; Williams v Warren, 214 Ark 506, 511 [1949] ["No one can claim that an estate in land should be divested by forgery"]). It is similarly true that no property shall be encumbered, including by a mortgagee, in reliance on a forged deed (see Marden, 160 NY at 51; see also Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2d Dept 2007]["A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid"]; Jiles v Archer, 116 AD3d 664, 666 [2d Dept 2014] ["If a document purportedly conveying a property interest is void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide encumbrancer for value receives nothing"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 15.09 ["If the conveyance is void, the purchaser or encumbrancer will not enjoy any of the rights of a bona fide purchaser"]; 43A NY Jur 2d Deeds § 218 ["a forged deed is null and void, and conveys nothing, and a purchaser or mortgagee from the grantee, even for value and without notice of the forgery, will not be protected"]). Neither can recording a forged deed transform it into a document with legal authority to establish a valid property interest, for it "does not change the legal rights of anyone" (Marden, 160 NY at 56). "The fact that a false and fabricated writing of this character is deposited in a public office for record, and is actually recorded, can add nothing to its legal efficacy. The recording statute applies to "genuine instruments and not to forged ones" (id. at 56, citing Albany County Sav. Bank, 149 NY at 74). As this Court held in Marden, a forged deed is void, not merely voidable. That legal status cannot be changed, regardless of how long it may take for the forgery to be uncovered. As this Court made clear in Riverside Syndicate, Inc v Munroe, a statute of limitations "does not make an agreement that was void at its inception valid by the mere passage of time" (10 NY3d 18, 24 [2008], citing Pacchiana v Pacchiana, 94 AD2d 721 [2d Dept 1983]). Consequently, plaintiff may seek to vacate the deed and defendant's encumbrance upon the property. Indeed, this is the prevailing approach in other jurisdictions (see e.g. Moore v Smith-Snagg, 793 So 2d 1000, 1001 [Fla Dist Ct App 5th Dist 2001]["(o)f course, there is no statute of limitations in respect to the challenge of a forged deed, which is void ab initio"]; see also Wright v Blocker, 198 So 88, 90-91 [Fla 1940]). The high court of West Virginia, for example, has observed that "there is no statute of limitations regarding void deeds" (MZRP, LLC v Huntington Realty Corp., 2011 W Va LEXIS 240, 2011 WL 12455342 [W Va 2011] [void tax deed]), while the high court of Idaho held that "[b]ecause [a] lease agreement was void ab initio, it could be challenged at any time" (Thompson v Ebbert, 160 P3d 754, 757 [Idaho 2007] [attempted lease void based on a lack of authority to lease only a portion of the property]). Given the clarity of our law that a forged deed is void ab initio, and that it is a document without legal capacity to have any effect on ownership rights, the question remains whether a claim challenging a conveyance or encumbrance of real property based on such deed is subject to a time bar. Our case law permits only one answer: a claim against a forged deed is not subject to a statute of limitations defense. So Judith I think the prior legal wisdom answers your query but if you have any other questions , please do not hesitate to have them asked so that we can have them addressed too. Thank you very much.

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

To adopt Kabaka Mutebi's position is to permit a forged deed to accomplish, by the mere passage of time, what has always been forbidden - the encumbrance and transfer of title. Neither law nor public policy nor common sense dictates such outcome. Kabaka Mutebi fails to present a compelling reason to overturn or ignore our prior case law in the area of real property because as we have recognized, "parties in business transactions depend on the certainty of settled rules, 'in real property more than any other area of the law, where established precedents are not lightly to be set aside'" (172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Ass'n, Inc., 24 NY3d 528, 535 [2014], citing Holy Properties Ltd., L.P. v Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 87 NY2d 130, 134 [1995]). No less so with respect to forged deeds, because landowners, banks, mortgagees, insurers, and a myriad of others depend on the simple rule that a forged deed is a legal nullity that cannot divest ownership or serve to encumber real property. I have stated at, perhaps, undue length some of the reasons that constrain me to reject the argument. It has always been supposed that real property could not be the subject of larceny, but this is evidently a mistake, if it be true, as the Kabaka Mutebi claims, that the false papers which the judgment in this case has declared void and set aside, are to be given such legal effect as to divest the tamale of his property and convey it to Kabaka Mutebi. In that case the process of stealing real estate, if I may be permitted to use that expression, will be very simple and comparatively safe. All that will be necessary for the criminal to do in order to feloniously appropriate to his own use the real property of another, is to fabricate a deed that shall contain the signature of the true owner, genuine if possible, by any trick or artifice, but if not, then simulated, since that will be just as good. The next step will be to procure a notary to attach to it a false certificate that the owner acknowledged it before him, and then file it in the clerk's office. It will not be necessary that the true owner should ever see the paper or deliver it to any one. If the grantee named in this false paper should be able to find a bank or an individual willing to loan money on the faith of such a record as the company nile bank claims to have dealt with on the land in question did in this case, the theft will be complete, since the title of the true owner will be extinguished by the bona fide intentions of the deluded money lender, or the owner will be estopped by reason of the confidence which it is said may have been reposed in the record of a crime. The proposition that a person, or a bank, engaged in loaning money, may, if ignorant of the real facts, rely upon a falsehood placed upon record by criminal means, to the prejudice of the rights of the true owner of real estate, must open the door for the destruction of all titles, and make it much easier for the criminal to purloin real than personal property. It is said that the false deed in this case was duly recorded, but surely this must be an inadvertence, since it is impossible to conceive that a writing, purporting to be a deed, but never executed, acknowledged or delivered, could be duly recorded. The act of the registrar in copying on his books a forged instrument, deposited with him as part of a criminal scheme, cannot very well be called duly recording a conveyance of land. So with the above wisdom in our ambit Judith, I think this clearly takes you home on the issue we are addressing.

[@judithmatovu3528]

I heard one panelist say that the Kabaka of Buganda doesn't want to.pay for Tamale's portion of land. However, I don't understand how your set comes to this conclusion given the fact that on no occasion has Mr. Tamale met the Kabaka face to face. Instead of continuing to embarrass Kabaka Mutebi and Buganda, wouldn't it be wise to arrange for a meeting between Mr. Tamale and the Kabaka and we see how things will move?

[@GeorgeMwebe]

Some times I don't blame mulangila jjuko if kabaka can come out and say he doesn't have power since 1993 lwe yalinya kunamulondo atali mutto abadewa elyo lyona ebanga okuleka ssekabaka chwa gwebalinyisa ku namulondo nga mutto abasajja nabo tubasasile batuffu okunyiga olaba nange kinuma ebigenda mumaso nga kabaka wali alamulal

[@stanleyanthony9850]

@ Judith you don’t just walk into state house to see M7 nor can you walk to Banda to see HRM! The problem is the handlers of the 2. The man has tried for 20 years to do just that instead in 2022 he was cheated instead in an affidavit. Just be empathetic… instead fire the handlers who advised him wrongly to commit a felony

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

It is quite obvious that the argument in support of this contention not only ignores the conclusive character of the findings as made, but assumes other facts by way of defense not found or even alleged.A party cannot make a deed without some assent of the will. It must be a conscious act, accompanied by an intention, and every one of these elements are wanting in this case as appears from the finding. The act of signing a deed is only one step in the process of changing the title to real property. The instrument is perfected only by delivery, and in this case that most important fact is negatived by the findings. No one can now claim that the grantee in the spurious paper ever received any title whatever under it. I have said that Kabaka Ronald Mutebis' claim rests upon a spurious or fabricated paper, but this expression does not describe the true character of the instrument. It was simply a forgery in every legal or moral aspect in which it can be considered. That crime is defined by the common law to be the fraudulent making of a writing to the prejudice of another's rights (4 Black. Com. 247), or the making malo animo of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud and deceit. (2 East P.C. 852.) The false making of an instrument which purports on its face to be good and valid for the purpose for which it was created, with the design to defraud. (1 Leach, 366; Black's Law Dic. 508.) The false making or material alteration, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability. (2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 523.) The fraudulent making of an instrument in writing to the prejudice of another's rights. ( People v. Cady, 6 Hill, 490; People v. Shall, 9 Cowen, 778; People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. 560; Harris v. People, 9 Barb. 664.) "Forgery has been defined to be a false making, or making malo animo, of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud and deceit. (2 Russ. 317, and authorities there cited.) The evidence fully justifies the conclusion that the Kabaka Ronald Mutebi falsely made and prepared the instrument set forth in the indictment, with the evil design of defrauding the party whose deed it purported to be. It is not necessary that the act should be done in whole or in part by the hand of the party charged. It is sufficient if he cause or procure it to be done. The instrument was false. It purported to be the solemn and voluntary act of the grantor, in making a conveyance, to which he had never assented. The whole was done by the hand, or by the procurement, of Kabaka Ronald Mutebi. It does not lessen the turpitude of the offense that the party whom he sought to defraud was made in part his voluntary agent in effecting his purpose. If he had employed any other hand, he would have been responsible for the act. In truth the signature to that false instrument, in a moral and legal point of view, is as much imputable to him as if he had done it with his own hand. The art and management has no tendency to mitigate the charge, and the opinion of the court is, that the crime of forgery has been committed. When the false making, with an evil design, is proved artful subterfuges in defense have been disregarded, of which many of the cases cited for the government are illustrations." It must be admitted that the case from which this quotation is taken was not nearly so rank in its general features as the case at bar. The grantor in that case intended to execute a deed, and it was executed and delivered, and, moreover, it was not infected, as the instrument in this case is, with the vice of a false certificate of acknowledgment. So that when the instrument under which the Kabaka Ronald Mutebi now claim was placed among the public records, it was nothing but a forgery. It was not only a forgery at common law, but a forgery by statute. Placing the so-called deed in this case upon record, with intent to defraud, was an "uttering or putting off as true," within the meaning of the statute. ( Paige v. People, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 439.) Moreover, a false certificate of an acknowledging officer to an instrument purporting to be a deed, that the same was acknowledged by a party thereto, is forgery under the Penal Code, and while the absence of knowledge or a criminal intent on the part of the officer would absolve him from liability, yet that circumstance cannot, of course, change the character of the instrument of which the certificate is an essential part, or make it any the less a forgery. The fact that a false and fabricated writing of this character is deposited in a public office for record, and is actually recorded, can add nothing to its legal efficacy. The Recording Act applies to genuine instruments and not to forged ones. ( Albany Co. Savings Bank v. McCarty, 149 N.Y. 71.) It may be that the actual record of such a paper may deceive the unwary, but that circumstance does not change the legal rights of any one. A bank may loan money upon the security of a pledge or mortgage of personal property in the possession of the thief who has stolen it, and the loan may be made in good faith on the honest belief that the thief who has the possession has the title; but this would not prevent the real owner from pursuing his property and taking it wherever he could find it. ( Knox v. Eden Musee Co., 148 N.Y. 441.) It would not help the bank in that case to allege, as Kabaka Ronald Mutebi in this case allege, that it was a bona fide purchaser. It is legally impossible for any one to become a bona fide purchaser of real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title, and that is this case. It is equally impossible to construct an estoppel against the real owner upon a forged instrument, placed upon record without the authority of any one, and, of course, the paper in question was no more entitled to record upon the false certificate than if it contained no certificate whatever. Void things are as no things. I think this finally sorts your concern Judith.

[@herberttamale1579]

On many occasions, more than 20years, i have tried it though Kabaka z person secretary Mr Mpanga Peter, whom i seat with all that long,

[@judithmatovu3528]

@@GeorgeMwebe Kabaka akole ki mu mbeera eno ng'obuyinza bwonna bwamuggibwaako? Oba ffenna tukimanyi nti Kabaka yafuulibwa ng'ekifaananyi ng'alina kutunuulira butunuulizi ebigenda mu maaso; kati lwaki bannakukalala abatonotono bavaayo okumukomerera emisomaali mu mutwe n'okumuweebuula? Mpozzi singa muvaayo nemutugamba nti Kabaka olwanditegedde nti obuyinza bwamwambulwa yandikasuseewo bukasusi Nnamulondo ne yeetegula ekibabu! Ate nakino Kabaka Mutebi ssi y'alina okukisalawo. Kabaka Mutebi ogugwe agukoze. Yatugamba nti "tulina abeerimbise mu bw'Akabaka bwe'Buganda, nga beefuula abwaagala naye nga bakolerera kubusaanyaawo." Tetubalabye? Yatugamba nti "ndi Kabaka atalina buyinza". Emivuyo egivudde mu mbeera eno waliwo atagiraba? Jjuuzi n'atugamba nti "Abaganda temubongoota"! Mwagala nga ye amaze okututemyaako ate y'aba akwaata amafumu n'engabo? Abaganda nga tukulemberwa Abataka b'Obusolya, ffe twaalanirira okuzzibwaawo kw'Obwakabaka. Nga bwetukizudde nti Kabaka atalina obuyinza ssi gwetwaasaba; tusituke Nate tubanje obuyinza bwa Kabaka. Abatyoboola Kabaka naffe ffenna tukimanyi bulungi nti kino tekisoboka mu unitary system of governance mwetutambulira. Enfuga gyetulimu obuyinza bwonna ebujjayo mu bakulembeze ab'ennono nebuteeka mu Central Government. Eby'etaagisa kati kulwanirira kuzza nkola eya Federo (federal system of governance) si mu Buganda mwokka naye ebune mu Uganda yonna . Obuyinza bwebugabanyizibwa wakati wa Central Government ne Regional Governments; abakulembeze ab'ennono n'ebitundu bya Uganda byonna bijja kusobola okweekolera ku bimu ku bizibu byaabyo. Kale tuve mu bubulwa bw'empisa n'okufuuka ba "kiiso Kya mbuzi" tulekerere okulumba ensibuka y'emitawaana ate tudde mu kutyooboola Kabaka wa Buganda.

[@judithmatovu3528]

@joseph Kiyimba, kindly assist me here. It seems I have a language problem. Your program today is titled "True as it is equally sad, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi is totally in the wrong." However, as you expound on your submission, you go ahead to mention many other people/officials both in the Government of Uganda and the Government of Buganda who errored either by negligence, omission, not keenly perusing through the tendered documents, not professionally pointing out the glaring anomalies that were committed right from the beginning of the process up to the end or even ignorance of some laws. To mention a few you talked about URSB, URA, the Receptionist at the Land Registry, the Lands Officer who handled the Kabaka 's file, the Commissioner of Lands, the Katikkiro Charles Peter Mayiga, the former Commissioner of Lands Sarah Basangwa Kulata, the Commissioner of Oaths, Mr. Seguya etc. You end by alleging that it was a conspiracy between the Kabaka and all these persons to defraud Mr. Tamale of his one acre of land! My question: why and how does someone come to be regarded "totally in the wrong" when he finds himself in a cobweb of actions of omission, ill intention, negligence of so many other people?

[@stanleyanthony9850]

Joseph , the kabaka is wrong … period. I respect my leaders but if they are wrong… they are just wrong and let’s find solutions. Tamale has tried for 20 years to sort quietly his issues but , on deaf ears

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

The offence of Conspiracy to defraud requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. It is a very wide offence and catches conduct that might not constitute an offence but which, by reason of two or more people agreeing to do it with the requisite intent, it becomes an offence. Common law conspiracy is therefore wider than statutory conspiracy because it does not require the agreement to be in respect of the commission of a substantive criminal offence. In England, conspiracy originated in the 13th century as a crime punishing (Sayre Criminal Conspiracy, (1922) 35 Harvard Law Review 393 (395) and by Holdsworth Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Process, (1929) 37 LQR 462 (467) (Book Review of Winfield History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure) conduct equivalent to that which is now covered by the action for malicious prosecution. By(Ordinance Concurrent Conspirators, (1305) 33 Edward reproduced by Sayre Criminal Conspiracy, (1922) 35 Harvard Law Review 393 (395) the early 17th century, it had become an inchoate crime, encompassing the malicious agreement alone, even if its object had not been attained.( Poultere's case, (1611) 77 English Rep 813).Later, the Judges of the King's Bench extended the conspiracy concept to make criminal all agreements which had crimes as their objects.( Wright Criminal Conspiracy and Agreements, (1887), p. 26, referred to in Goldstein, Conspiracy to defraud the United States, (1959) 68 Yale LJ 405 (416). By the early 18th century conspiracy came to be used as a means to punish "all confederacies whatsoever, wrongfully to prejudice the third person".( Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, (1787) Vol. 1. p. 348, cited by Goldstein Conspiracy to defraud the U.S., (1959) 652 Yale L.J. 405, 416.) Finally, in 1832, Lord Denman defined 'conspiracy' as "an agreement to do an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means".( King v. Jones, (1832) 110 English Rep 485 (487); and see Pettibone v United States, (1893) 148 US 197 (203). But the word "unlawful" was found to be vague. It is well-known that because of the vagueness of the word "unlawful", acute controversy arose. The law of conspiracy even became an economic and political weapons directed against groups threatening the status quo.( Holdsworth History of English Law, Vol. 8, pp. 381 to 384; Nelles The First American Labour Case (1931) 41 Yale LJ 165 (193); Sayre Labour and the Court, (1930) 39 Yale LJ 682 (684). At present, in England, while it is well established that conspiracy to commit an indictable offence is itself a crime, the question how far conspiracy to commit (i) an offence triable summarily, or (ii) a tort, or (iii) a breach of contract is punishable has been the subject matter of controversy for some time. Ever since the famous work by R.S. Wright on Conspiracies was published, this topic has engaged the attention of courts and writers, not only because Wright was a Judge of the High Court with great reputation for his knowledge of criminal law, but also because of the scholarly and penetrating analysis presented in the book. Where the agreement is not to commit a crime but other illegal act, the position in England as to the exact scope of the crime of conspiracy is thus in a fluid state. However, we are not concerned with the details of that debate. The law of criminal conspiracy in England was dealt with in some detail in Kamara's case(Kamara v. D.P.P., (1973) 3 WLR 198 (HL) where Lord Hailsham Lord Chancellor, discussed at length the offence of criminal conspiracy. As Lord Diplock said in another case,( D.P.P. v. Bhagwan, 1972 AC 60 (79) (HL) "the least systematic, the most irrational branch of English penal law (criminal conspiracy) still rests upon the legal fiction that the offence lies not in the overt acts themselves which are injurious to the common weal, but in an inferred anterior agreement to commit them." That a conspiracy is complete before any offence is actually committed, was established long ago in England. In a case in which judgment was delivered by Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice,( R. v. De Berenger, (1814) 105 ER 536 )De Berenger and others were convicted on an indictment which averred that they conspired to circulate false rumous of the death of Napolean, with the intent that it would be thought that peace would soon be concluded between England and France so that the market price of government stock would rise After conviction, they moved for arrest of judgment, on the ground that it was no crime to raise the price of public funds and that the indictment was defective in tha't it did not name the alleged victims. Rejecting this motion, the court said that it was not necessary to specify the persons who become purchasers of the stock. Apart from the fact that the persons to be affected by the conspiracy would, at the time of the conspiracy, not be known because the accused "could not except by a spirit of prophecy, divine who would be purchasers on a subsequent day," such a statement was wholly unnecessary, "the conspiracy being complete independently of any persons, being purchaser".( Emphasis Mine.) The mens rea in conspiracy consists in the intention to execute the illegal elements in the conduct contemplated by the agreement in the knowledge of those facts which render the conduct illegal.( Kamara v. D.P.P., (1973) 3 WLR 198 (HL). The agreement represents actualisation of the intent, the assumption being that the individual merely thinking evil thoughts is not punishable, the requirement as to agreement is intended to ensure that the evil intent of the man branded as a criminal has been expressed in a manner signifying harm to society-that is the threat represented by the agreement. However, it must be recognised that punishing conspiracy means punishing conduct which may nowhere come near to the carrying out of the supposed threat. Finally to answer your question that states,"..............My question: why and how does someone come to be regarded "totally in the wrong" when he finds himself in a cobweb of actions of omission, ill intention, negligence of so many other people?....................." Because that someone we would all want to protect was engaged in a conspiracy to defraud. An agreement with a common (criminal) design may take various shapes. Howart C.J. in Mevrick,( R. v. Moyrick and Ribuffi, {1929) 21 Cri App R 94.) had occasion to deal with this aspect. The facts were as follows:- Between the years 1924 and 1928, in London, a racket existed with regard to the conduct of night clubs in the West End. The police in this district consistently turned a blind eye to the activities of these clubs, which were carried on in a manner involving breaches of the law, particularly of the licensing laws. Ultimately, the matter was investigated, and it was found that one Sergeant Coddard of the Metropolitan Police Force had been bribed by a number of night club operators, including Mrs. Moyrick, Luigi Ribuffi, Anna Gadda, and others. Mrs. Moyrick and Ribuffi were charged, together with Sergeant Coddard, on an indictment containing several counts. They were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and Mrs. Moyrick and Ribuffi appealed. Describing the variety of such crimes, Hewart C.J. said:- "Such agreements may be made in various ways. There may be one person, to adopt the metaphor of counsel, round whom the rest revolve. The metaphor is the metaphor of the centre of the circle and the circumference. There may be a conspiracy of another kind, where the metaphor would be rather that of a chain. A communicates with B, B with C, C with D, and so on to the end of the list of conspirators. What has to be ascertained is always the same matter: is it true to say, in the words already quoted, that the acts of the accused were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in common between them?" So much as regards the nature of the crime. It is well-known that the prosecution in a trial for conspiracy bears some advantage in contrast with other criminal trials. The general rule of the law of evidence is that actions or statements of X are not admissible against the accused, unless they are done or made either in his presence or by his authority. This limitation does not, however, apply to conspiracy trials. The prosecution is permitted to enter evidence which could not be regarded as having adequate probative value to be admissible for trial in any other offence. In case of any question if the prior is not understood,please ask.

[@judithmatovu3528]

@josephkiyimba kindly enlighten me on the following issues: 1. When does anyone qualify to be a bona-fide occupant of another person's land? 2. I read part of your reply saying that Kabaka's bona-fide status because he "forged a title". Which came first, the "forgery" or the bona-fide occupancy?

[@judithmatovu3528]

I meant - "the Kabaka's bona-fide status didn't apply because....."

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

@@judithmatovu3528 2. I read part of your reply saying that Kabaka's bona-fide status because he "forged a title". Which came first, the "forgery" or the bona-fide occupancy? The forgery came first. The forgery was done by RICOTE LIMITED AND NILE BANK LIMITED when they combined to make a title over land that they already knew belonged to and had been encumbered by the Balaba interest

[@SAM.2525]

Omulangira Jjuko had talked of Tamale’s land title being ekiccupuli in one of the last episodes has he vilified weather it’s a legit land title

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Tamale titles are legitimate and the legal reasoning below backs that up. A careful reading of the provision reveals that the actions of the Chief Registrar of Titles in the instant case were, with due respect, grossly irregular, illegal, and done in utter disregard of the law. Section 59 (supra) essentially provides for the indefeasibility of a certificate of title and the registered proprietor as follows; “No certificate of title issued upon an application to bring land under this Act shall be impeached or defeasible by reason or on account of any informality or irregularity in the application or in the proceedings previous to the registration of the certificate, and every certificate of title issued under this Act shall be received in all courts as evidence of the particulars set forth in the certificate and of the entry of the certificate in the Register Book, and shall be conclusive evidence that the person named in the certificate as the proprietor of or having any estate or interest in or power to appoint or dispose of the land described in the certificate is seized or possessed of that estate or interest or has that power.” A registered proprietor of land is protected under Section 176 RTA (supra) .The relevant part thereof states as follows; “No action of ejectment or other action for the recovery of any land shall lie or be sustained against the person registered as proprietor under this Act, except in any of the following cases- (a) ……………………………………………….; (b) ………………………………………………..; (c) the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud as against the person registered as proprietor of that land through fraud or as against a person deriving otherwise than as a transferee bona fide for value from or through a person so registered through fraud;…” (d)................................ (e) the case of a registered proprietor claiming under a certificate of title prior in date of registration under this Act in any case in which two or more certificates of title may be registered under this Act in respect of the same land, and in any case other than as aforesaid the production of the registered certificate of title or lease shall be held in every court to be an absolute bar and estoppel to any such action against the person named in that document as the grantee, owner, proprietor or lessee of the land described in it, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding. When Section 69(supra) 59(supra) and 176(supra) are read together, they leave no doubt that the Chief Registrar of Titles acted contrary to the law in cancelling Tamales entry and substituting the names of Ronald Mutebi on the title. The failure to comply with provisions of the law meant that the Chief Registrar of Titles exercised power illegally with material irregularity, which rendered his actions on the title null and void. It was held Makula International Ltd. v. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & A’ nor [1982] HCB 11 that an illegality once brought to the attention of court cannot be condoned. Apart from the above, it also found that by taking a decision affecting rights of the tamales without according them opportunity to be heard the Chief Registrar of Titles exercised power improperly. This invariably violated the cardinal principle of natural justice as relates to a fair hearing, and that a party shall not be condemned unheard. It is settled that an administrative body/person acts improperly and or illegally where it/he exercises its/his power to decide a question without affording a party affected by the decision an opportunity to be heard, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is contrary to principles of natural justice. See: Re: Musinguzi Geoffrey and Kiruhura District Local Administration, HCT- 05 - CV - MA - 193 - 2011 (unreported). It is also the trite law that a decision reached by an administrative body/person which violates principles of natural justice shall not be left to stand. See: See Sharp v. Welefield (1981) A.C 173 which was relied upon in Re: Interdiction of Bukeni Fred Misc. Appl.No. 139 of 1991, per Musoke - Kibuuka J. It is, however, rather disturbing that the Chief Registrar of Titles did not find it proper to redirect the notice to the Administrator General concerning the suit land which at the time was part of the deceased’s estate. The failure rendered the decision of the Chief Registrar affecting the title legally ineffective, which also rendered the subsequent entries on the title ineffective. It follows that the position of the Register of titles must be restored to that obtaining as before cancellation of the original’s entry that was done before Ronald Muwenda Mutebi. This logically means that the Tamales as Administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of late Balaba would have an interest in the suit land. Based on the prior presents any legally knowledgeable person will based on the prior presents have this answered in the affirmative and finally the land in question will be that of Tamale and Ronald Mutebi.

[@herberttamale1579]

He collected it by reading the foil volume of the original of the title pls

[@julietL2510]

Sometimes I ask myself what's the use of KABAKA MUTEBI banange.? Kikki kyakoledde BUGANDA okuva bweyajja mu BWAKABAKA.?? Kikki kyatugassa dala.?? Aliwo nga KIFANANYI..??? Mulimu kki gwakola mu Mmengo.?? Banange munyambeko muntegezeko.!!!!🤔

[@mukasajeremiah8284]

U r right nothing @ol😢😢

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, the above expressions indicate that the subjects are not happy.That’s how stories happen - with a turning point, an unexpected twist. There’s only one kind of happiness, but misfortune comes in all shapes and sizes. It’s like Tolstoy said. Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story. Unhappiness. There are all kinds of unhappy people in the world. I suppose it would be no exaggeration to say that the world is composed entirely of unhappy people. But those people can fight their unhappiness with society fairly and squarly, and society for its part easily understands and sympathizes with such struggles. Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, these few people telling you that they are not happy with the way things are being done in the Kingdom reflect a big number of disgruntled persons, so the earlier you and i realise this , the better

[@adambossa5352]

😂❤tusanyusse okubalaba lelo

[@danielkigozi682]

I’m No 30 today

[@JonathanDdamba]

Mulago original documents I have them incase you need them I can share.

[@DanielsNTatya]

Please do you will be doing a great service to Ugandans. Thanks for watching as well.

[@judithmatovu3528]

@kiyimbajoseph Kabaka Mutebi ye mumwanjadde bulungi nnyo but let me remind you of an incident (without mentioning names) that happened in Uganda in the very recent past. A certain grown up man whom the Ugandan population highly respected went ahead and vehemently blasted another grown up man also highly respected; because of some mistake he committed somewhere sometime. The "good' man really bashed his friend and subjected him to the highest form of public ridicule. Ugandans were saddened by this event and prayed that the "good man" finds space in his heart to leave the "bad man" alone and accept that at least he had done his ego justice. Personally, I prayed to God not to call me back home but give me more time to watch the "good man". God was gracious. Katonda nga bwali omulamu, what the "good man" did recently left people dumbfounded. Funny enough, in his case nobody published his deeds but they were there for everybody to watch in amazement!

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

Judith if they are any more question please ask!

[@judithmatovu3528]

@@jjuukojosephkiyimba I once asked you whether the so-called bona-fide clause didn't/doesn't apply to Kabaka Mutebi. If it did/does, how best would he have made use of it in the event that as he was looking for the owner of the said piece of land in vain; the owner of the land was on the other hand also looking for this bona-fide occupant, still in vain!

[@jjuukojosephkiyimba]

@@judithmatovu3528 The bona fide thing does not apply to Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi . The legalese below will help bring it home to you. "[i]t is legally impossible for any one [sic] to become a bona fide purchaser of real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title, and that is this case" (id. at 56; see also Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104, 105 [1st Dept 2001] ["A forged deed is void and conveys no title"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 15.01 ["A purchaser who takes title through a forged deed cannot be a bona fide purchaser, even if the purchaser did not have knowledge of the forgery"]). New York's rule reflects a general well-established principle of real property law (see e.g. Harding v Ja Laur Corp., 20 Md App 209, 214 [Md Ct Spec App 1974] ["A forged deed . . . is void ab initio"]; Scott D. Erler, D.D.S. Profit Sharing Plan v Creative Fin. & Investments, L.L.C., 349 Mont 207, 214 [2009] ["forged conveyances are void ab initio and do not transfer title"]; Brock v Yale Mortg. Corp., 287 Ga 849, 852 [2010] ["we have also long recognized that a forged deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee"]; Akins v Vermast, 150 Or App 236 n 7 [Or Ct App 1997] "If fraud is 'in factum,' such as a forged deed or a situation analogous to forgery, the deed is void ab initio and will not support subsequent title in any person"]; First Nat. Bank in Albuquerque v Enriquez, 96 NM 714, 716 [1981] ["a forged deed is a void deed and transfers no interest"]; Williams v Warren, 214 Ark 506, 511 [1949] ["No one can claim that an estate in land should be divested by forgery"]). Based on the above. Kabakas title is an illegality because it was done in breach of effect 176 ( e) of the RTA CAP 230. For that reason he does not qualify for bona fiddes.["If a document purportedly conveying a property interest is void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide encumbrancer for value receives nothing"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York Real Property § 15.09 ["If the conveyance is void, the purchaser or encumbrancer will not enjoy any of the rights of a bona fide purchaser"]; 43A NY Jur 2d Deeds § 218 ["a forged deed is null and void, and conveys nothing, and a purchaser or mortgagee from the grantee, even for value and without notice of the forgery, will not be protected"]). Neither can recording a forged deed transform it into a document with legal authority to establish a valid property interest, for it "does not change the legal rights of anyone" (Marden, 160 NY at 56). "The fact that a false and fabricated writing of this character is deposited in a public office for record, and is actually recorded, can add [*5]nothing to its legal efficacy. The recording statute applies to "genuine instruments and not to forged ones" (id. at 56, citing Albany County Sav. Bank, 149 NY at 74). Hope this sorts you now.Dear