A fresh dispute has emerged over the estate of the late businessman Dr James Musinguzi Garuga, with his widow Peace Kesiime Bagorogoza, lawyer Agaba Maguru alias Musigi, and Henry Hapa Nganwa facing accusations that they are trying to turn President Yoweri Museveni into a scapegoat for legal challenges they are allegedly facing over properties linked to Incafex Company Ltd. The accusations centre on claims that company assets were sold or transferred in a manner that allegedly went against a Supreme Court decision.
According to correspondence from the Presidency, Museveni was briefed by Mathew Rukiikaire, who describes himself as a shareholder in Incafex Ltd and Garuga Properties. Rukiikaire reportedly told the President that after the death of the majority shareholder, there were deliberate moves to dispose of company properties without board approval. Rukiikaire is said to have informed Museveni that most of the company’s valuable assets had already been stripped away, leaving him with little to show for what he claims is a 45% stake.
Rukiikaire is said to have reminded the President that in 2017, a five-member Supreme Court bench ruled in his favour in a shareholding dispute against Incafex U Ltd, confirming his 45% ownership and ordering a special audit to establish the company’s shareholding structure. He is said to have complained that almost ten years later, the audit had allegedly not been carried out. He therefore asked Museveni to intervene and ensure that compensation for the two remaining ranches, which were taken over by government, was shared in a way that protected his interest.
Museveni is said to have subsequently directed government to start the process of compensating Rukiikaire for his claimed 45% interest, with the remainder to be held in court until the audit at Incafex Ltd is concluded. The directives were reportedly issued to the Attorney General and the Minister of Lands and Urban Planning. Following those directives, Bagorogoza, Maguru and their associates are said to have become critical of Museveni for acting on Rukiikaire’s appeal after years of unsuccessful pursuit of justice.
The group is accused of using social media operators and self-styled activists to attack the President and discredit an intervention that supporters of the directive say was aimed at preventing further loss of the late Garuga’s estate. Sources familiar with the matter claim the group was particularly unhappy because they had allegedly expected the compensation funds to be channelled through accounts under their influence. One anonymous source alleged that the group had already shared part of an earlier Shs800 million payment released by government to facilitate the late businessman’s medical treatment abroad.
Questions have since been raised about how the destination account was allegedly changed before payment, and how the funds were later withdrawn and shared. After Dr Garuga’s death, disputes over his properties are said to have intensified, with claims of sales and transfers carried out without board resolutions or authorisation. Maguru, who served as company secretary, is accused of allegedly appointing himself as a director in Garuga Properties Ltd, Incafex Ltd and Kinkiizi Development Company Ltd without board approval.
The Registrar of Companies is said to have later removed him from the list of directors after Rukiikaire petitioned the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB), arguing that the appointments had been secured using forged documents. Despite court restrictions on the sale of properties, Bagorogoza, Maguru and Nganwa are accused of proceeding with transactions involving some of the properties, including the alleged sale of 2,000 acres of Incafex Ltd land in Ngoma, Nakaseke District and about nine square miles of Incafex land in Kabula, Lyantonde District.
Key points
- The accusations against Bagorogoza, Maguru and Nganwa include attempting to blame President Museveni for their legal challenges in the Garuga estate saga.
- The dispute centres on the estate of late businessman Dr James Musinguzi Garuga and properties linked to Incafex Company Ltd.
- The case involves allegations of asset sales and transfers carried out without board approval or authorisation.
