By Our Reporter
30/10/2026
The Indian community in Uganda has appealed to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to intervene in a bitter land dispute with Kampala businessman Abdul Kasaayi, whom they accuse of attempting to take over their commercial property located on Plot 98/104 along Nakivubo Road, near Kisekka Market.
The community, led by Sulaimani Murad Ali, claims it legally acquired the property in 2007 and subsequently constructed a commercial building from which its members have been earning rental income. However, the occupants allege that Kasaayi is now attempting to take control of the building and evict them despite an ongoing court case over its ownership.
Murad, speaking on behalf of the affected Indian nationals, has called on President Museveni to establish the rightful ownership of the property and order investigations into officials at Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and the relevant land offices, whom the community accuses of colluding with Kasaayi to fraudulently alter their land title and facilitate the alleged takeover.
The disputed property is situated near the mechanics section of Kisekka Market in Kampala. It comprises two upper floors, while the ground floor accommodates several shops rented out to traders operating in the busy commercial centre.
According to Murad, the community purchased the property in 2007 and invested in developing it into a commercial building. However, about five years ago, their attention was drawn to an advertisement offering the building for sale, with potential buyers reportedly being asked whether anyone had a claim to the property.
The discovery prompted the occupants to investigate, with their findings allegedly pointing to Kasaayi, a businessman associated with Old Taxi Park Mall, whom they accuse of orchestrating attempts to take over the property.
Murad alleges that the community’s original land title was fraudulently altered and replaced with a new one without their knowledge or consent. He further claims that Kasaayi worked with some senior officials at KCCA, particularly those handling land matters, to facilitate the processing of what he describes as fraudulent land documents.
The affected occupants subsequently dragged the matter to court, where the ownership dispute remains unresolved. However, they accuse Kasaayi of continuing with efforts to take possession of the property despite the pending court proceedings.
Murad maintains that Kasaayi does not have a court order authorising their eviction. He alleges that the businessman has instead relied on letters purportedly issued through the Office of the Resident City Commissioner (RCC) to facilitate their removal, raising questions about the authenticity and legal authority of the documents.
The community has also expressed concern over alleged claims that President Museveni gave Kasaayi the building in recognition of his support during previous presidential election campaigns. The occupants have challenged the alleged claim and asked the President to investigate the matter and establish the facts surrounding the disputed ownership.
Tensions reportedly escalated on Wednesday when a group of youths allegedly arrived at the premises and began cutting down trees before pulling down sections of the perimeter fence.
According to the occupants, the youths initially informed them that they had come to cut some trees but later proceeded to dismantle parts of the fence, leaving iron sheets and other materials scattered around the property.
The affected families say the building is not only a source of rental income but also a place where some of them have lived and raised their children over the years. They fear that losing the property could leave their families and businesses without shelter and a reliable source of livelihood.
The Indian community has therefore appealed to President Museveni to intervene and direct a comprehensive investigation into the alleged land fraud, including the conduct of officials in government institutions responsible for land administration and property records.
They argue that their long occupation and investment in the property should be considered in determining their legal rights. However, any claim based on adverse possession would depend on the applicable legal requirements and the specific circumstances of the case.
Meanwhile, Kasaayi has dismissed the allegations, saying he is only undertaking improvements to enhance the appearance of the property. He has denied attempting to evict the Indian occupants, maintaining that the activities at the premises are intended to improve the building.
The dispute remains unresolved, with the Indian community seeking presidential intervention as the question of ownership awaits determination through the appropriate legal channels.
