COURT .
Anglican Christians in Ndeeba , a Kampala City suburb have a reason to jubilate after the Court of Appeal ruled that the demolition of St Peter’s Church in 2020 was illegal .
In a unanimous ruling by a three-panel bench dated April 25 , the appellate court judges ordered the lower court to conduct a fresh hearing.
The demolition of the church was widely condemned and consequently led to the arrest and trial of city businessman Mr Dodoviko Mwanje, who claimed ownership of the disputed piece of land which was housing the church structure .
Mr Mwanje, who is accused of stealing church property worth sh850 million, was later granted bail by the Anti-Corruption Court.
In the latest ruling the judges including Irene Mulyagonja, John Oscar Kihika, and Moses Kazibwe Kawumi agreed that the execution levied against the occupants of the land known as Kibuga Block 7, Plots 749 and 750 at Ndeeba, formerly Plot 39 at Mengo, was illegal and set it aside.
The trio also directed that the 2008 suit be remitted to the High Court to allow for the hearing of evidence from the personal representatives or administrators of the estates of the late Reverend Y.A. Kitaka and Bishop Dunstan N. Nsubuga, the registered proprietors of the land.
The administrators include;Mr Richard Kitaka Esau,Ms Ruth Natembo Kitaka, and Ms Lucy Nsubuga.
The dispute over the land involves the administrators of the late Kitaka and Nsubuga and the administrators of the estate of the late Evelyn Nachwa including ,Mr John Kajoba and Mr Edward Balunga.
The justices ruled that the injunction restraining the Attorney General from paying sh3.8b to Ephraim Enterprises Limited, owned by Mr Mwanje , as compensation for the acquisition of the disputed land shall remain in force until the final disposal of the matter .
“The status quo obtaining on the land known as Kibuga Block 7 Plots 749 and 750 at Ndeeba, formerly Plot 39 at Mengo at the time of hearing these appeals shall be maintained until final disposal of the suit,” Justice Mulyagonja ordered .
The justices held that the Principal Judge did not error in determining that, without evidence of fresh instructions from Lucy Nsubuga to lawyer Ambrose Tebyasa (written or otherwise), the lawyer’s mandate to defend her lapsed after she was struck out as a party to the suit.
The court found that Tebyasa filed a defense for his client that was inconsistent with her interests as the personal representative of her late husband, a Bishop in the Church.
According to the justices, despite being aware of the Church’s interest in the land, the lawyer made no effort to ensure his client testified in court.
The judges observed that the lawyer’s reason – that she [Lucy Nsubuga] would be under ‘intense pressure’ to testify in support of the Church amounted to professional misconduct.