Counsel Peter Kabatsi, the lawyer representing businessman Amos Nzeyi has said his client is willing to refund money for the disputed Temangalo land if NSSF no longer wants the property, as the long-running land dispute takes another turn.
The lawyer made the remarks after appearing before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), which is investigating the status of the disputed NSSF property.
He said Nzeyi was prepared to find a solution to the dispute, including selling some of his land at the prevailing market value to raise money.
“He’s prepared to return the money of the land they don’t want because they have it now,” the lawyer said.
He added that his client could even sell his own land at market value to raise the money, although he said the details would have to be discussed further.
The lawyer, however, said Nzeyi was not prepared to surrender the land on which his home stands.
He argued that forcing his client to give up the property would leave him without a place to live.
According to the lawyer, Nzeyi had previously offered to surrender half of the disputed plot if NSSF allowed him to retain the other half, including the portion occupied by his house.
The lawyer was also questioned about an eviction notice reportedly issued to Nzeyi by NSSF.
He said he had not seen the notice and could therefore not comment on its contents.
The dispute centres on land in Temangalo, Wakiso District, which NSSF purchased in 2008 as part of a 463.87-acre transaction involving Arma Limited and Nzeyi.
The transaction of 11.2 billion shillings later became controversial over the acreage, ownership and possession of portions of the property.
NSSF says Nzeyi was required under a memorandum of understanding to return 104.88 acres containing his house, paddocks and other developments in exchange for suitable alternative land.
The Fund says the required alternative land was never provided, leading to years of negotiations, arbitration and court proceedings.
In 2013, the dispute was referred to arbitration, with NSSF maintaining that the arbitration award upheld the original agreement and subsequent arrangements between the parties.
NSSF later assessed alternative land offered by Nzeyi and reportedly found only about 15 acres suitable for the proposed swap.
The Fund subsequently gave Nzeyi until June 30, 2026, to provide suitable alternative land, warning that it would seek enforcement through court if he failed.
The deadline has since passed, prompting NSSF to return to the High Court seeking enforcement of the land-swap arrangement and eviction from the disputed portion.
The lawyer, however, maintained that the matter had already been determined through arbitration.
He argued that the arbitration process was a court process and that the resulting judgment declaring the memorandum of understanding valid had not been successfully appealed.
“You have to take it,” he said, arguing that parties should respect the court’s decision if they did not appeal it.
The lawyer also questioned the validity of arguments that the memorandum of understanding was not properly sanctioned by the Solicitor General.
He said the matter had already been taken to arbitration precisely because one party had disputed the MOU, and the court ultimately declared it a valid agreement.
The lawyer also told journalists that Nzeyi was currently outside the country and was facing difficulties at the border.
He said he would contact his client to establish whether he would be able to return and appear before the committee at its next sitting.
The Temangalo dispute has remained active for nearly two decades and has also attracted repeated parliamentary scrutiny over NSSF’s acquisition and management of the property.
COSASE recently directed parliamentary police to verify the current status of the land after NSSF Managing Director Patrick Ayota told MPs that an eviction notice had been issued to Nzeyi.
The renewed court action now places the long-running dispute back before the High Court as NSSF seeks to enforce its claimed rights over the property.
