AYIVU SECURITY COMMITTEE REFERS DECADES-OLD LAND DISPUTE TO COURT

Members of Yapi Clan removing their chairs in protest during the dialogue.

By Dramadri Federick

Arua city

The Security Committee of Ayivu Division in Arua City has failed to resolve a long-standing land dispute involving two families, directing both parties to seek a final determination through the courts.

The dispute, which has persisted for nearly three decades, allegedly originated when the late Ongua, of the Yapi clan (Lugbara tribe), attempted to lock a building constructed around 1979 by the late Kamilo Akenda, a Jonam. However, the conflict escalated in 1995 when the late Kamilo began the process of acquiring a land title for a 1.2-acre parcel that his family claims he purchased from a man identified only as Ali, an Acholi.

According to members of the Akenda family, the late Kamilo later entrusted the land to Ben Torrac, who subsequently became involved in a court battle over its ownership after the late Ongua’s family challenged the claim and obtained an injunction.

Family members say the matter was eventually settled in court, with a 2018 ruling reportedly upholding their ownership after all relevant land evidence was presented and evaluated.

Despite that judgment, a fresh conflict has emerged between the children of the late Kamilo Akenda and the Ongua’s family, with both sides disputing ownership and questioning the legitimacy of the land documents.

Before a community dialogue convened by the Ayivu Division Security Committee could begin, the descendants of Draecabo family, along with that of the Ongua family, served the meeting’s convener Godfrey Johna Mbigiti, the Deputy Resident City Commissioner (RCC) in charge of Ayivu Division with a notice of intention to sue.

The notice, issued by Ndiwa Walukano Advocates and Legal Consultants and dated July 30, 2026, requested the Deputy RCC to call off the meeting. The firm argued that the dialogue was inappropriate because an active court case regarding the same land was already underway.

Despite the objection, the security committee ensured the meeting proceeded, bringing together members of both families and local leaders in an effort to calm tensions and explore possible solutions.

However, the dialogue quickly grew tense as rival family members exchanged accusations over the history and ownership of the disputed property.

Sidonia Kunonga, one of the daughters of the late Kamilo Akenda, maintained that her father legally purchased the land from an Acholi man known as Ali. However, when questioned by Bayo Yuda, a son of the late Draecabo, she was unable to provide the seller’s full name bringing the whole meeting to stalemate.

Yuda challenged the circumstances under which the transaction allegedly occurred, questioning how an outsider could acquire land within the Yapi Clan area without the knowledge or involvement of the clan members.

Rubanga John Onen making a submission during the meeting.

John Onen Rubanga, a son of the late Kamilo Akenda who said he closely followed the court proceedings involving Ben Torrac until judgment was delivered, questioned why the Draecabo family and clan leaders did not appeal the 2018 ruling if they were dissatisfied with the court’s decision.

“If you didn’t appeal back, and also you want us to die of this stress? No, that cannot happen,” Rubanga said.

However, Bayo Yuda insisted that the process through which the land title was obtained was irregular and argued that the matter should be re-examined before the current title holder continues utilizing the land.

“If Ali is an Acholi and gave land to a Jonam, where were the Yapis? Some of the matters are reaching court, we shall clarify ourselves with them,” Yuda said.

As emotions continued to rise and the meeting became increasingly confrontational, Deputy RCC Godfrey Johna Mbigiti suspended the dialogue, noting that the Security Committee lacked the legal mandate to determine ownership of land.

He advised both parties to pursue legal remedies through the courts and cautioned against interfering with the use of the land by the registered proprietor until a competent court issues a contrary ruling.

“I have taken a decision to suspend this meeting because sitting here will not resolve anything. You go to court, but those who have the title have the right to use this land. If anyone disrupts their peace, I will deal with them,” Mbigiti warned.

With no agreement reached and positions on both sides remaining firmly entrenched, the dispute has once again been referred to the courts for resolution.

For now, a land conflict that has spanned nearly 30 years remains unresolved, with its final determination once again resting in the hands of the judiciary.