Hajji Musa Kigongo
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I A fresh legal battle has emerged over the ownership of a prime property in Kampala’s upscale Kololo suburb after the High Court dismissed an application by Olive Kigongo seeking to terminate her joint ownership with her former husband, Hajji Musa Kigongo, and have the property sold through competitive bidding.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Elizabeth Jane Alividza of the Land Division of the High Court in Kampala declined to authorise the sale of Plot 29, Kololo Hill Drive, holding that doing so before the determination of an ongoing appeal would prematurely interfere with the ownership arrangements that are still being challenged in the Court of Appeal.
Justice Alividza reasoned that terminating the co-ownership arrangement at this stage would undermine the proceedings before the appellate court, which is yet to determine the competing claims arising from an earlier judgment that recognised the former couple as equal owners of the property.
“It is my finding that severing the suit property terminates the tenancy in common which in turn would affect the determination of the pending appeal. It is on this ground that this cause is denied,” the judge ruled.
Olive had approached court seeking an order terminating the tenancy in common and directing that the property be sold through an open competitive bidding process, with the proceeds distributed equally between the two parties.
She argued that the irreconcilable differences between herself and Hajji Kigongo had made it practically impossible for them to communicate, cooperate or jointly manage the property.
According to her application, their strained relationship had undermined the management, maintenance and utilisation of the property, raising fears that the prime real estate could deteriorate without proper coordination.
She therefore wanted the court to bring the joint ownership arrangement to an end through a supervised sale rather than allow the property to remain caught up in their longstanding disagreements.
However, Justice Alividza found that although the application was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, granting the orders sought would have significant implications for the pending appeal.
The judge explained that tenancy in common, under which two or more people own undivided interests in the same property, can be terminated either through the sale of the property or its partition.
A sale would effectively bring the existing co-ownership arrangement to an end, allowing the parties to receive their respective shares of the proceeds.
But the court considered that such an intervention would be premature because the underlying ownership rights remain the subject of appellate proceedings.
The judge also referred to Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, which recognises a certificate of title as conclusive evidence of ownership of land and the particulars registered on it.
The decision means that Olive and Hajji Kigongo will continue holding their registered equal interests in the property as tenants in common until the outstanding appeal and cross-appeal are determined.
The dispute dates back to 2015 when Hajji Kigongo, the First National Vice Chairperson of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), instituted Civil Suit No. 295 of 2015 seeking, among other remedies, Olive’s eviction from the property following the breakdown of their long-term relationship.
Olive contested the suit, filing a defence and counterclaim in which she sought recognition and protection of her interest in the land.
On April 27, 2017, the High Court dismissed Hajji Kigongo’s suit for lack of merit and entered judgment in Olive’s favour on her counterclaim.
The court directed the Commissioner for Land Registration to register both parties as tenants in common in equal shares. It also issued a permanent injunction restraining Hajji Kigongo from evicting Olive, selling, mortgaging, leasing or otherwise interfering with her interest in the property and her right to quiet enjoyment.
The registration was eventually effected on June 2, 2023.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Hajji Kigongo challenged the decision through Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2019. Olive subsequently filed a cross-appeal on April 16, 2025, challenging aspects of the earlier determination.
About the Author
