Attorney General v Sempebwa & Others (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 929 (1 October 2024)

Full Case Text

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA

## **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2024**

# ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

SEMPEBWA DENNIS, SSEMPEBWA EDWARD KISAKA AND SSEMPEBWA GEOFFREY (As Administrators of the Estate of the late **JULIANA NABIKADDE** NDIBALEKERA) and $40$ **Others \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\***

## Before: HON JUSTICE LAWRENCE TWEYANZE

## **RULING**

## Introduction.

- 1. The Applicant brought this Application under Article $26(2)(a)$ & (b) of the Constitution, Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 16, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282, Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act Cap 235, and Order 52 rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended for orders; That the Applicant be granted leave to deposit in Court the Respondents' compensation sum of UGX 711,679,010 (Seven Hundred Eleven Million, Six Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand, Ten Shillings) forming part of the land earmarked for the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline Project (hereafter referred to as "EACOP project"); That the Applicant be granted vacant possession of the land in above to conduct its activities thereon; That the Applicant be granted eviction and demolition orders against the Respondents; That the Applicant be discharged from any liabilities arising out of any claim and/ or action following the orders sought herein, and that Costs of this Application be provided for. - 2. The grounds in support of this Application are stated in the Affidavits deponed by Irene Pauline Bateebe and Gilbert Kermundu but briefly

Page 1 of 14

$\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$

they are: - That the implementation of the EACOP Project requires the acquisition of land measuring approximately 2740 acres in Districts of Hoima, Kikuube, Kakumiro, Kyankwanzi, Mubende, Gomba, Sembabule, Kyotera, Rakai and Lwengo being acquired under the Resettlement Action Plan 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "EACOP RAP") by East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) Ltd (hereafter referred to as "EACOP Ltd") on behalf of the Government of Uganda.

- 3. That the Government of Uganda through EACOP Ltd has been undertaking land acquisition for purposes of constructing the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline and compensating impacted landowners and land users (hereinafter referred to as "Project Affected Persons"). That on 29th November 2019 the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development published the Land Acquisition (Development of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline) Statutory Instrument No. 105 of 2019, declaring the land described therein as required by Government for public purposes. - 4. That the Government has continuously engaged the Project Affected Persons throughout the EACOP RAP development and implementation process. The continuous engagements included surveys and capture of asset inventories, disclosure of the cut off dates, disclosure of entitlements, disclosure of the grievance resolution mechanisms and financial literacy trainings. That the Government undertook valuation of all the land to be acquired for the development of the EACOP Project. All the valuation reports were approved by the Chief Government Valuer, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the payment of compensation of the Project Affected Persons. - 5. That the Respondents are landowners and users whose land measuring 102.499 acres located in Lwengo, Rakai and Kyotera Districts, is affected by the EACOP project. That since 2022 the Government through EACOP Ltd has been unable to compensate the Respondents due to the following reasons: The refusal by the $1^{st}$ to the $6^{th}$ Respondents to accept compensation as approved by the Chief Government Valuer, Nonresolution of the land disputes among the 7th to the 16th Respondents, for which the Applicant has no mandate to resolve and or decide who

Page 2 of 14 Junuar

the rightful owner of the suit land is, Lack of a legally recognized representative for the 17th to the 33rd Respondents, Lack of land title documents for the 34th to the 35th Respondents, Failure by the Applicant to locate the 36th to 40th Respondents despite several efforts to locate them, including through consultations with local leaders, radio and print advertisements.

- 6. That following the compensation of the 41st Respondent, the Applicant has been unable to access the project land because of his refusal to vacate the land. That on 20th November 2023, the Chief Government Valuer was appointed by the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development as the Assessment Officer in respect of the EACOP Project. That on 25th January 2024, the Notice of Intention by the Government to take possession of the suit land was gazetted and copies sent to all relevant persons/ stakeholders and exhibited at convenient places near the suit land. - 7. That between 12th and 23rd February 2024, the Assessment Officer held meetings with the families of the 3rd, 8th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 32nd, and $33rd$ Respondents whereas the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 17th, 25th and 26th Respondents were served with the Notice but did not show up for engagements. That the refusal by the 1st to the 6th Respondents to accept the compensation as approved by the Chief Government Valuer, nonresolution of the land ownership disputes among the 7th to the 16th Respondents, for which the Applicant lacks the mandate to determine the rightful ownership of the suit land, the absence of legally recognized representatives for the 17th to the 33rd Respondents, the lack of land title documents for the 34th to the 35th Respondents, inability to locate the 36th to the 40th Respondents and refusal by the 41st Respondent to vacate the land, has constrained the implementation of the EACOP Project. That it is in the interest of justice and fairness that the Applicant is granted the orders sought herein to enable EACOP Ltd continue with development of the EACOP Project without any hindrance. - 8. In reply, the 25th Respondent, Mulindwa Paul deponed that he is a great Grandson of the Late Kakolo Tomasi, the registered owner of land described as Block 153 Plot 12 land at Kiganda. That in 2019, his family

Page 3 of 14

Jumises

was approached by NewPlan and were informed that their land was required for the EACOP project. That they said that about 2.498 acres of their land would be acquired by Government and they would be compensated for it. That the land in question is part of 30 acres of Mailo forming part of his Late great Grand father's Estate. That in 2022, their family held a meeting where it was decided that Kabunguli Hassan, Nakalema Teddy and himself petition for and be granted Letters of Administration to manage the Estate of their great Grandfather including the suit land. That they tried hard to process and get the said letters but they were informed by EACOP Officers of Masaka Branch that the process for all files falling under the Succession Register where their file falls had been suspended. That as they were pondering what to do next, they were shocked to receive this Application seeking to deposit the unchallenged assessed amount into Court yet the same is very little as low as UGX 12,495,995 for the 2.498 acres.

- 9. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22rd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased Respondent number 38 renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs. That the actions of the Applicant in compulsorily taking over Estate property without an Administrator and seeking to deposit the unchallenged assessed amount in Court thus sealing the acquisition is illegal and null and void. That the actions and omissions of the Applicant in failing to recognize his equitable interest as a beneficiary in his Late great Grandfather's Estate that has no Administrator violates his right to property and protection of the same from compulsory acquisition without prior, fair and adequate compensation as enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution. - That the actions and omissions of the Applicant in failing to accord 10. him a chance, as a beneficiary of his Late great Grandfather's Estate Late Kakolo Tomasi that has no Administrator, to challenge the assessed amount before seeking to deposit the same in this Court, violates his right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution. That the actions of the Applicant, in issuing a statutory instrument on the 29th November 2019 wherein he gazetted land for EACOP that included part

Page 4 of 14

Junius

of his Late great Grand father's Estate, amounts to acquiring property before compensation which is contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution. That the gazetting of land before valuation and compensation is unconstitutional as it attempts to compulsorily acquire part of his Late great Grandfather's Estate before compensation thus contravening the provisions of Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution on rights to property and fair hearing and thus unconstitutional. That in 2018 or thereabouts, their Late great Grandfather's land was surveyed by Newplan, but we were informed that to get compensation for it, they needed Letters of Administration and promised to work on them themselves on their behalf. That they convened a family meeting wherein resolutions were made appointing him as their choice of the Administrator and he was later taken to the Administrator General's office where he was interviewed and promised that his Certificate of No Objection would be issued soon. That as he was still waiting for the Certificate of No Objection, he was shocked to be served with copies of the Court papers with the Applicant seeking to deposit the unchallenged assessment of his great Grandfather's Estate in Court and complete the takeover of his Late great Grandfather's Estate.

- The 11th Respondent, Kizza Nambaya, deponed that the Application 11. against the 38th Respondent is incompetent and defective as the said person is dead. That EACOP is a private profit - oriented project which does not fall within the conditions under which the Government can compulsorily acquire land under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda hence unconstitutional. That the actions of the Applicant in dealing with the Estate of the deceased intestate persons like his Grandfather where no Letters of Administration exist is illegal. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased 38th Respondent renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs. - 12. The 30th Respondent, Mugonza Alfred deponed that he is a great Grandson of the Late Mukubansi Matayo, the registered owner of land described as Block 851 Plot 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 24, 25 land measuring approximately 39 acres located in Nkoni Bigadda in Kakuuto District.

Page 5 of 14

Smumke

That sometime in 2018 or thereabouts, he learnt that part of their Late great Grandfather's land was to be affected by EACOP and to get compensation as beneficiaries they needed Letters of Administration for his Estate. That EACOP is a private profit - oriented project which does not fall within the conditions under which the Government can compulsorily acquire land under Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda hence unconstitutional. That the actions of the Applicant in dealing with the Estate of deceased intestate persons like his Grandfather where no Letters of Administration exist is illegal. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like himself, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 31st, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased 38th Respondent renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs.

- The 21st Respondent, Mukasa John Bosco, deponed that he is a great 13. Grandson of the Late Tomasi Bassajamivule who died in 1926 and that his said great Grandfather is the registered owner of Mailo land described as Block 627 where the EACOP Pipeline has been mapped to pass. That the great Grandfather was allocated this land under the 1900 agreement. That the actions of the Applicant in dealing with the Estate of deceased intestate persons like my Grandfather where no Letters of Administration exist is illegal. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like himself, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased 38th Respondent renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs. - The 32nd Respondent, Sendi Deo deponed that he is a Grandson of 14. the late Dimitrio Musumisi and a beneficiary of his Estate land comprised in Buddu Block 627 Plot 18 Masaka District. That in 2019 or thereabouts, they were informed that an oil pipeline, now East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) was going to pass through their area and that their land would be required for that purpose; and that the Applicant wanted to acquire part of the above-described Estate land where the said pipeline would pass. That the actions of the Applicant in dealing with the Estate of deceased intestate persons like his

Page 6 of 14

Smuniky

Grandfather where no Letters of Administration exist is illegal. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like himself, 9th, 10th, 1ith, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased Respondent number 38 renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs.

- The 4th Respondent, Kayabula Wilfred deponed that he is a son of the 15. Late Peter Muwemba Kaweesi who was the registered owner of land described as Buddu Block 851 Plot 6 part of which the Applicant has compulsorily acquired for her EACOP project. That EACOP project is a private profit - oriented project which does not fall within the conditions under which the Government can compulsorily acquire land under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda hence unconstitutional. - The 3rd Respondent, Bwowe Ismail, deponed that he is the owner of 16. one acre of land which he purchased in 1997 from Rajab Kyajjakuzimba located at Kituntu village, Bethlehem Parish, Nabigasa Sub - County, Kyotera District and he has coffee, yams, maize, sugarcane, banana plantation and herbs. That he is Respondent number 3 having been sued by the Applicant on grounds that part of his land has been compulsorily acquired and he has rejected the compensation assessed for his said land of UG SHS 12,700,000=(Shillings Twelve Million, Seven Hundred Thousand). That upon the assessment of UG SHS 12,700,000=, he complained about it as being inadequate, and now the Applicant is seeking to complete the process by depositing the same in this Court. - Sebuliba Wilberforce deponed that he is a Grandson to the Late 17. Mugwanya John B the registered owner of the land described as Buddu Block 695 Plot 7 where the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has been mapped to pass. That his Late grandfather Mugwanya John B died on the 13th April 2016 but he was shocked to learn that he has been sued as Respondent number 38 in this Application and he replies as someone well acquainted with the facts of the Applicant's claim as one of the two persons who have been selected by the family to administer the said Estate. That the actions of the Applicant in dealing with the Estate of

Page 7 of 14

Smulle deceased intestate persons like his Grandfather where no Letters of Administration exist is illegal. That the instant Application against beneficiaries like himself, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, and 33rd Respondents including a deceased 38th Respondent renders this Application incurably defective and should accordingly be struck off the record with costs.

- The 12th Respondent, Nakiwala Justine deponed that she strongly 18. opposes this Application and the same does not apply to her and the 10th Respondent since their dispute was resolved by Courts of law and she prayed that their money should be paid to them on their Account already submitted with EACOP. That depositing money in Court will cause them unnecessary delays in receiving the same. - 19. The 9th Respondent deponed for herself and on behalf of the 10th Respondent that a Kibanja held by herself, Babirye Nalutaaya Viligo [10th Respondent], Nambatya Kizza [11th Respondent], Nakiwala Justine [12th Respondent], and Ssekalejja Paul [20th Respondent] was affected by the ongoing construction of the NewPlan Oil Pipeline and they were to be compensated for the individual crops / developments and the general Kibanja interest per the EACOP Compensation guidelines and the various meetings they had as a family and as a community at Nansiti. That after the Valuation and Compensation exercise was completed, herself and Babirye Nalutaaya Viligo [10th Respondent] got first compensation for their developments / crops on the said Kibanja. However, a one Nambatya Kizza [11th Respondent], lodged a complaint at the Regional Police Headquarters Masaka against them for fraud. - The 6th Respondent, Yiga Cosmas deponed that the land which the $20.$ Applicant seeks to compulsorily acquire is private mailo which forms his ancestral land/family land and the same belonged to his great Grandfather. That the said land was subsequently inherited by his father; and the same is now registered in the names of his elder brother John Mary Nsamba. That the land affected by the EACOP project which

Page 8 of 14

SMILLAS

the Applicant is seeking to compulsorily acquire is approximately 2.137 acres out of the total 24.9 acres which translates to 19 plots, that on this specific portion of the land affected by the EACOP project measuring approximately 2.137 acres, he had cultivated 56 grafted mango trees which were over a year old and they were thriving very well.

- 21. The 5th Respondent, Samba John Mary deponed that the land which the Applicant is seeking to compulsorily acquire for EACOP Project, has been a source of stability for their family, providing not only sustenance but also a sense of identity. That his family's connection to this land is irreplaceable, and it serves as a fundamental part of their heritage. That he personally manages the activities on this land, ensuring its sustainability and productivity. That the significance of this land to his family cannot be overstated; it is their primary source of livelihood. That the land in question is 24.9 acres, a private Mailo and it is registered in his name and he inherited the said land from his father and the same is their ancestral land - According to the affidavit of service deponed by Opio Moses, some 22. of the Respondents could not be located and others were served, and they filed their respective affidavits in reply which are on Court record as above. Only affidavits filed on Court record have been considered and if others were filed, the same have not been brought to my attention at the time of this ruling. Nonetheless, this Application shall be determined with the available material on Court record. - 23. At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Mugisha, the State Attorney from the Attorney General's Chambers. Kizza Eron and Odur Anthony represented the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 20th, 21st, 25th, 30th, 32nd, and the 38th Respondents. Mr. Ssozi represented the 11th and 12th Respondents. Muwanga represented the 29th Respondent. Ssekyejwe represented the 9th and 10th Respondents while Kusingura represented the 7th Respondent. The 8th, 18th, 22nd, 26th 27th, 31st Respondents were unrepresented. The $36^{th}$ , $37^{th}$ , $39^{th}$ , $40^{th}$ , and $41^{st}$ Respondents were unrepresented.

The issues for determination are:

Page 9 of 14

SMILKED

- 1. Whether the **Applicant** should deposit the Respondents' compensation sum in Court. - 2. What remedies are available to the parties? - $24.$ The determination of this Application of this nature between the parties rests on establishing facts regarding the nature and character of the rights vested in the land, the capacities of the parties and the legal and equitable implications of the Applicant's acquisition of land, if it meets the requirements of being in public use. In this case, the Application and the affidavits in support of the Application with the annextures suggest that the lands in issue are sought to be acquired for public use, thus; for the EACOP project and, the Assessment Officer made the relevant and appropriate compensation awards to the Persons Affected by the Project (the PAPs). - 25. According to Article 26 $(2)$ of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, as emphasized in the case of Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development & 2 Others vs AG & Another CCCP No. 40 of 2013, 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....*

The right to property is a fundamental right guaranteed by the above 26. Article 26 of the Constitution, and this right to private property, cannot be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation. Therefore, the Government State cannot dispossess citizens of their property except in accordance with the procedure

Page 10 of 14

Smulky

established by law. The obligation to pay adequate compensation is mandatory. It therefore follows that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 26 of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of persons by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public use and adequate compensation therefore must be paid.

- 27. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, provides how the Government can compulsorily acquire land and it provides that; - "(4) *where an Assessment Officer makes an award.........in respect of any land-* - $(a)$ .................... - (b) subject to subsection (5), the Government shall pay compensation in accordance with the award as soon as possible after the expiry of the time *within which an appeal may be lodged.* - (5) Where- - (*a*) *an appeal is lodged against an award made under this Section;* - (b) a person awarded compensation under this Section refuses to accept *payment; or* - (c) any other circumstances arises which renders it inexpedient, difficult or *impossible to make payment in accordance with the award,* The High Court, on the Application of the Attorney General, may order payment to be made into Court on such conditions as it thinks appropriate". - 28. The above provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are in line with the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. In Attorney General versus Etot Paul Peter & Ors C. A. C. A. No. 144/2018, Madrama, J. A (as he then was) "Article 26 of the Constitution *allows the compulsory acquisition of property by Government for public use or* in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public marketing or public health. It further provides that the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of property should be made under a law which makes provision for prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property and it guarantees the right of access to a Court of law by any person who has an interest or right over the property..... Article 26 of the Constitution envisages a dispute after the

Page 11 of 14

SMANKAN

compulsory acquisition of the property and gives right of access to a Court of law to any aggrieved persons".

- In this matter before Court, it is not in dispute that the assessments $29.$ of awards for compensation were made by the Applicant as required under the Land Acquisition Act, by looking at the material brought and tendered in this Court, it is clear that the lands of the Respondents and those that claim an interest in them were identified by the Applicant for acquisition and for purposes of the EACOP project. In the case of the Attorney General. vs Kisembo Rugadya & 41 Ors H. C. M. A. No. 24 of 2023, Court stated that "Court is required to apply Article 26 of the Constitution, bearing in mind and in regard to especially when disputes arise and have the potential to cause delays in public works and become an impediment to the public interest and the logical need not to hamper the implementation of the project merely because of the disputes among the Respondents themselves or disputes challenging the assessed award". - The Applicant who represents the Government must comply with 30. the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a democratic State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi - faceted dimension. - In a democratic State like Uganda, the authorities are bound, not only 31. to pay adequate compensation, but there is also an obligation upon them to ensure that such persons are not greatly inconvenienced. Therefore, it is not permissible for the State to uproot persons and deprive them of the fundamental/constitutional/human rights, without adequate compensation under the confines of public use. - In this case, the Applicant has properly demonstrated through the 2 32. affidavits in support of the Application deponed by Irene Pauline Bateebe and Gilbert Kermundu that all the legal requirements for the acquisition of the Respondents' land under the Constitution and the

Page 12 of 14

Smunke

Land Acquisition Act have been met. The assessed compensation awards have been made in respect of the Respondents' respective portions of land as per the copies of the valuation and survey extracts of the Respondents as contained in the Approved Valuation Reports marked. The refusal to accept compensation, absence of legal representatives and inability to locate certain Respondents therefore, justify the depositing of the compensation sum in Court to as to legally discharge the Applicant's obligations while enabling the Government to take possession of the land and proceed with the project. Moreover, some of the Respondents are agreeable to the assessed compensation awards.

- $33.$ From the affidavit of Mr. Gilbert Kermundu, the Chief Government Valuer and the Assessment Officer in this case, it has been established that the land and assets rates for the properties affected by the EACOP project were determined by the relevant appropriate surveyors and the District Land Boards respectively and the appropriate assessed compensation awards have been accordingly made. In the circumstances of this case where some of the PAPs have been satisfied and accepted the compensation, some of the Respondents have refused to accept payment on the ground that the compensatory sum is not satisfactory and others are untraceable, this Court proceeds under S.6 (5) of the Land Acquisition Act to allow this Application for the Applicant to deposit the total compensation sum of UGX 711,679,010 (Seven Hundred Eleven Million, Six Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand, Ten Shillings) in Court. - The above compensation is for later collection of its beneficiaries, the $34.$ Respondents upon their re-appearance for those who are untraceable and upon securing the relevant legal representative authorities for those who comprise of families of the deceased persons and those who are dissatisfied with the awarded compensation sum or contesting the valuation itself, to institute legal proceedings by way of objection or through any other action to the High Court under S.13 of the Land Acquisition Act. I am not satisfied by the arguments of the Respondents, since they have not demonstrated serious prejudice, they would suffer if the said compensation is deposited in Court. I have not found anything material from the Respondents' affidavits that would be a big

SMMMAB Page 13 of 14

issue to the progress of the EACOP project if the orders sought by the Applicant are granted.

- In the final result, the Application is granted with the following 35. orders: - a. The Applicant is granted leave to deposit in Court the Respondents' compensation sum of UGX 711,679,010 (Seven Hundred Eleven Million, Six Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand, Ten Shillings) as assessed by the Chief Government Valuer and the Assessment Officer forming part of the land earmarked for the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline Project (hereafter referred to as "EACOP project"). - b. The above sum in (a) above shall be deposited on the account of the Registrar High Court, Account Number: 003010088000012 Bank of Uganda. - c. The Applicant is granted vacant possession of the land in (a) to conduct its activities thereon. - d. The Applicant is granted eviction and demolition orders against the Respondents but must do so without endangering human life and in accordance with the law. - e. The Applicant is discharged from any liabilities arising out of any claim and/ or action following the orders sought herein. - f. No orders as to Costs.

I so order.

Ruling signed and delivered by email at Masaka this 1st day of October, 2024

**MMM**

**LAWRENCE TWEYANZE** JUDGE. 1st October, 2024.

Page 14 of 14