I have appreciated Prince Jjujuz assertiveness, eloquence and information about Buganda and Uganda land issues, big up to himself as we drink from his cup of knowledge.
Stanley and Joseph, thank you very much for this informative discussion on a subject that is at the core of humanity, at least in as far as a muganda is concerned.. and that is LAND. I have liked the guest's response to your question about why he does not take buganda to court with all that awareness of the fraud that those managing buganda affairs are engaged in. He is right about first creating awareness of the ordinary person about how he has been fleeced, and then after that awareness, people will come up and take legal action. Or at least a few that can will help to organize collective LEGAL action against CPM and Co, I think he also right on the issue of some of the people in mengo that are children of people that have been in Mengo ( most of them part of the Kakamega) to cover up the wrong their father committed, while at the same time preparing their own children to also take over from them. However, with these revelations, and the awareness being created... aba Kakamega.....bafudde!!! The Little that Joseph has said about the VIVA rhymes exactly with the information that was given by Paul@UNNTV, a long while ago, bottom line... Ssebo Charles Peter Mayiga, you can Run, but you will not HIDE.
But the person telling this information a Prince,! and I don't think all the thieves he talked of a Buganda!otherwise stay tuned to understand.blessings.
You will note that presently the illegal Buganda Land Board wants to claim the land at Kaazi using a forged title. But this is legally impossible because of the legalese subsequent. For over a century, since this Court's decision in Marden, a forged deed has been treated in New York as void ab initio. As the Court recognized [*8]in Riverside, a statute of limitations cannot validate what is void at its inception. Therefore, a void deed is not subject to a statutory time bar. However, under well-established real property principles, because only a holder of legal title may convey an interest in real property, no property interest can be conveyed by a forged title like the one the BLB is using to claim the land at Kaazi, and no person may be a bona fide purchaser of real estate on the force of such title. Moreover, our recording statute does not apply to a forged deed, with the consequence that recording a forged deed cannot transfer title. We, thus, decline the Buganda Land Board's invitation to unsettle this established doctrine to the detriment of our state's real property recording system. To adopt Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole's position is to permit a forged title to accomplish, by the mere passage of time, what has always been forbidden - the encumbrance and transfer of title. Neither law nor public policy nor common sense dictates such outcome. Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole' fails to present a compelling reason to overturn or ignore our prior case law in the area of real property because as we have recognized, "parties in business transactions depend on the certainty of settled rules, 'in real property more than any other area of the law, where established precedents are not lightly to be set aside'" (172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Ass'n, Inc., 24 NY3d 528, 535 [2014], citing Holy Properties Ltd., L.P. v Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 87 NY2d 130, 134 [1995]). No less so with respect to forged deeds and titles as well, because landowners, banks, mortgagees, insurers, and a myriad of others depend on the simple rule that a forged deed and title as well is a legal nullity that cannot divest ownership or serve to encumber real property..
WOW - COURTS HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE IN PETITIONS - THE LITIGANTS HAVE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE AND PRESENT IT BEFORE THE COURTS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A FAIR OR FAVOURABLE JUDGEMENT WITHOUT BIAS - THANK YOU.
TAKE HIM INFRONT OF APOLLO MAKUBUYA OR DF MPANGA and ur see how funny he will look . This isn't even cop law ! Jumping from one thing to another with low analytical skills and factually inaccurate statements that have thrown him in jail on many occasions . He is some fraud .
But if APOLLO MAKUBUYA OR DF MPANGA are serious lawyers as you think then Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) would have never happened. They are also free to explain there positions on this blog, please engage them so that they can litigate here and now for this is a court of public opnion. These laws you are talking about are behind the mess we see in Sudhir Rupaleria (Miscellaneous Application No. 1063 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 153 (21 December 2017) . Fresh details have emerged as to why Bank of Uganda (BoU) dropped lawyers from MMAKS and AF Mpanga in mediation talks between Crane Bank (in receivership/BoU) and property mogul Sudhir Ruparelia. Daily Monitor reports that it was the Principal Judge Yorakamu Bamwine who advised Bank of Uganda to appoint new lawyers after City tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia and his team threatened to walk away from mediation. The parties had earlier been advised by the head of Commercial Court judge, David Wangutusi to seek for an out-of-court settlement before it’s too late. The decision to drop MMAKS Advocates and AF Mpanga Advocates, who represent Bank of Uganda in the case of Crane Bank liquidation (takeover), came after Mr Ruparelia rejected mediation talks involving the two law firms he accuses of conflict of interest. The businessman had vowed not to take part in any talks when MMAKS and AF Mpanga law firms are involved. But when justice Bamwine took over from city lawyer, Ms Harriet Magara as the mediator in one of the high-profile cases, he advised BoU to appoint new lawyers. He also informed BoU officials that Mr Sudhir had raised serious objections bordering on conflict of interest and insisted that MMAKS and AF Mpanga were his witnesses in the main case. So Boss you just fear names and thats were we have a diffrence, if you think these people are good engage them and we go to court and you will learn something new.
WOW - SHOCK AND AWE - WHERE HAS THIS KNOWLEDGE OF BUGANDA KINGDOM; BUGANDA PUBLIC COMPANY; AND THE PRIVATE COMPANY IN BETWEEN INTERPRETATION BEEN ALL ALONG FROM THE KINGDOM INSIDERS LIKE THE PRINCES AND THE PRINCESSES - EH - KAWEDDEMU?
Omulangira Nakibinge K Kimbugwe abadde abagamba nti ObwaKabaka bwa Buganda obw'ennono bwaggwaawo my 1897 nga Cwa II afuulibwa "Kabaka" nga Kitaawe akyaali mulamu. Mwenna nemumukyaawa. Kati mubilaba nti Buganda was a Company even at Independence, Mubuuza Abalangira gyebabadde. Naye Abaganda mwaaba ki?
White collar crime is defined as non-violent crimes committed, directly or indirectly, for financial gain generally fall under the category of “white collar crime.” This is particularly true when the person or persons accused of illegal activity are professionals in business, particularly finance, or government..Financial crimes and the government’s prosecution of them are not limited to Buganda Kingdom, Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole, Buganda Land Board and related parties to it and corporate boardrooms. The category also includes offenses that could be the work of individuals or small groups. The state governments have enacted an enormous body of law regarding financial crimes, and it can be relatively easy for people to run afoul of these laws without even realizing it. No single definition of “white collar crime” exists in the law. Sociologist Edwin Sutherland is credited with coining the term, using it for the first time in a speech to the American Sociological Society in Philadelphia on December 27, 1939. He noted that police seemed to focus their attention on crime among the “lower class,” while ignoring crimes committed among “business and professional men,” people he described as “merchant princes and captains of finance and industry.” The “robber barons” of the late nineteenth century, he stated, were white collar criminals, but they were not as “suave and deceptive” as those of the Great Depression era. The people involved with the running of the Buganda Land Board Private Limited incorporated after the ruling in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) fit into the definition of white collar criminals because they have been illegally running the corporate in breach of effects 38 and 39 of the Company Act 2012 of the laws of Uganda.
These are the extracts from the Company Act 2012 for which the directors of the Buganda Kingdom are in breach. 38. Prohibition on trading under misleading name (1)A person who is not a public company commits an offence if he or she carries on any trade, profession or business under a name which includes as its last part, the words “public limited liability company”. (2)A public company commits an offence if in circumstances in which the fact that it is a public company is likely to be material to any person, it uses a name which may reasonably be expected to give the impression that it is a private company. (3)A company or officer of a company who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine not exceeding twenty thousand currency points. 39. Prohibition of improper use of “limited” A person shall not trade or carry on business under a name or title of which “limited” or any contraction or imitation of that word is the last word, unless duly incorporated with limited liability. The failure to comply with provisions of the law meant that the directors of the Buganda Land Board exercised power illegally with material irregularity, which rendered their actions of incorporating the Buganda Land Board Private Limited Company in breach of the prior company law dictates null and void. It was held Makula International Ltd. v. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & A’ nor [1982] HCB 11 that an illegality once brought to the attention of court cannot be condoned. For this reason I humbly pray that you do not deal with the Buganda Land Board
Katende is the same as Mayiga.. Katende is Mayiga's mantour and Lumbuye Kajubi always said this... And Al what Katendw's father did to Kabaka and Buganda kingdom.. We are having SNAKES in Mengo...
Its a calling to our society, let those go to state house and be paid, here on this platform we dont blackmail,we specialize on facts,credit to UNN tv and TV10 ne uganda eyenkya TV
MR STENLEY please talk about the young boys and girls which where abducted and took them to mubende mining sites , they lied to them that they are going to work in uae then after they told them that they are going to use kenya airport so they parked hundreds and droped them in mubende mining sites, this info is 100% collect
Mulangila atusomesa cooperate guvernance wano gwebatatusomesa mu LLB ku MUK , so it's easy to find very many lawyers nga tebalina this kind of knowledge.
Your show is so outstanding very Informative but the only issue I have is please stop creating excuse for the kabaka he sees and knows what's going on and trust me he is going to be on the wrong side of buganda history
True but when taking that position, I have taken the wisdom with which the case is Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) Docket No. 08-1394 Granted: October 13, 2009 Argued: March 1, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Annotation was done. The shareholders were let off the hook and the fire went direct to the directors. The same wisdom was applied in ASIC v Healey & Ors [2011] FCA 717. In ASIC v Healey & Ors [2011] FCA 717.,Justice Middleton of the Federal Court of Australia found that the directors were in breach of their directors’ duties under the Corporations Act. Justice Middleton found that a director cannot simply ‘go through the paces’ when signing off on financial statements. While a director can rely upon others to prepare the financial statements, the requirements for directors under the Corporations Act does not allow directors to simply discharge the responsibility of accurate financial statements to another competent and reliable person. A director is required to read, understand and apply his or her own knowledge to financial statements before approving them. Justice Middleton found that the errors in the accounts were well known to the directors, or if not well known to them, should have been. On this basis Justice Middleton found that the directors failed to take all reasonable steps required of them. Consequently, they failed to exercise the care and diligence required by directors under the law and thereby breached the relevant Corporations Law directors’ duties provisions. An argument was raised that the sheer volume of information provided in the financial reports is beyond what a reasonable director can digest and analyse. Justice Middleton rejected this and stated that if a director is provided with too much information in regards to a company, so that they cannot understand all its workings, then the director must decrease the volume of information provided to them or increase the amount of time prescribed to absorb the information. So the people should look at the directors of the Buganda Kingdom,Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole. To those with trust in Apollo Nelson Makubuya and David Mpanga, please engage them on best practice.
Kirabika, ne Buganda is illegal. Ndowooza ne Buganda tugigyewo. The bickering in the institution of Buganda is what brought about Obote abolishing it. This time its the Baganda who will abolish the institution. Tulisobola tutya okwesiga omuntu yenna. Kubanga ne Kabaka tamanyi kigenda mumaaso.
True boss but the matter was decided ex parte.. But even were cases are decided ex parte its encumbent on the people involved to make full disclosures to court without concealing anything like we see people do in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014).The clean hands doctrine is based on the maxim of equity which states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly & correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. He owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and desist from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising due diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If a petitioner/appellant/applicant is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to summarily deny relief to such person to prevent an abuse of the process of law and reject the Petition/Appeal on this ground alone without going to the merits of the case. The Apex Court has repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance: State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 431, Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 333, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and others (1996) 4 SCC 297, Union of India and others v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92, Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 and G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141. The Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidy vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853 at p. 855 has elucidated this doctrine thus: The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based upon falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. So in the ex parte judgement, in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014), it was incumbent of Kizito Bashir Juma to say the truth in line with the principles above and with the intention of satisfying the conditions of res judicata, since he did not, then the ruling is subject to discovery abuse whose repurcusiions you should know counsel.
Please do not think you lost it.Please keep your receipts and records. They will help us a lot when investigations begin. People will be held accountable like they were done so in Uganda v Kazinda and 3 Others (HCT-00-AC-SC 47 of 2012) [2021] UGHCACD 9 (8 October 2021).
True Male Mabirizi was ill prepared just like the lawyers we see in cases like Madhivani Group Ltd v Simbwa & Ors (Civil Suit No. 615 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 32 (30 September 2014),Kalemera v The Kabaka of Buganda & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 10 (10 August 2017) ,Prince Kalemera & Anor (Administrator of the estate of the Late HRH Sir Daudi Chwa II) v The Kabaka of Buganda & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017) [2020] UGHCLD 16 (28 September 2020) and Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) among others. I know we are a diffrent breed and this can be seen from the quality and quantity of the talk shows that we are driving on the investigator. We are a continuum of well seasoned professionals
JUST GOOGLE THE NAME OF THAT GUY AND YOU WILL LAUGH . HIS NAME IS JUUKO JOSEPH KIYIMBA . 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 HE IS A DREAMER ! GENDA BUGENZI KU YITANENTI OTEKEMU JUUKO JOSEPH KIYIMBA . WESOMELE OJA KUSEKA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 . ALWAYS IN JAIL . ASIIBA MU KOMERA , DEPORTED FROM USA , HAS BEEN TO LUZIRA SEVERAL TIMES . DEFAMATION CASES . MUFELE 😂😂😂😂😂😂 .......
@@sempanyijohn5644 yes ofcourse . BLB does not offer land titles . THAT MAN was taken to court and subsequently thrown in jail. Like I said Google out his name ( always search for the names of such people ) who claim to know this and that . HE IS NOT EVEN A LAWYER DO AN SUPRISED WHY HE MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE GREEN .
@@Leeasiimwe FACTS TO ONLY THOSE THAT ARE IGNORANT ABOUT WHAT FACTS ARE . WHAT HE IS SAYING ARE FACTUALLY INNACURATE STATEMENTS AND IT IS THE REASON THEY SUED HIM IN COURT AND WENT TO JAIL .
Thanks Ndugu, the Prince is so knowledgeable.
Wabula mukulu Stanley otoyina.Any thanks for the show, we're enjoying
Ohh mukama, finally someone to make sense of how messed up we are in Uganda, ne bi history tebabituyigiriza
Awakening of a generation 👌🏽👌🏽👌🏽
I have appreciated Prince Jjujuz assertiveness, eloquence and information about Buganda and Uganda land issues, big up to himself as we drink from his cup of knowledge.
Mzee Kiyimba must be very proud of you. Your emitting sense. Thank you brother.
Stanley and Joseph, thank you very much for this informative discussion on a subject that is at the core of humanity, at least in as far as a muganda is concerned.. and that is LAND. I have liked the guest's response to your question about why he does not take buganda to court with all that awareness of the fraud that those managing buganda affairs are engaged in. He is right about first creating awareness of the ordinary person about how he has been fleeced, and then after that awareness, people will come up and take legal action. Or at least a few that can will help to organize collective LEGAL action against CPM and Co, I think he also right on the issue of some of the people in mengo that are children of people that have been in Mengo ( most of them part of the Kakamega) to cover up the wrong their father committed, while at the same time preparing their own children to also take over from them. However, with these revelations, and the awareness being created... aba Kakamega.....bafudde!!! The Little that Joseph has said about the VIVA rhymes exactly with the information that was given by Paul@UNNTV, a long while ago, bottom line... Ssebo Charles Peter Mayiga, you can Run, but you will not HIDE.
Wow wow this is great 👍 to listening to this guy banange. Thank you so much indeed to bring him on the show. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Really the issue is immotionol but it z right am with you
Me am A MUGANDA but am and I respect him and I agree with him
Thank you for teaching us personally am Learning to be careful n careful
Ndugu Stanley Ndawula webale okomyawo Muzukulu wa Kabaka Mwanga Basamula ekkele Mukasa kiwamirembe Kiwanuka Kilevu ntende Daniyeli KING OF BUGANDA
Shukran 👏🌍🎉
This guy hits hard on the charlie ball.
Mr ndawula the second episode is no were to be seen
Wow,
Quite interesting.
Labisa labisa mulangila
Almghty God bless you abundantly,🙏, My request to our believe prince (Omulangira) and your son Saav talk to your brother Kabaka face to face.
Very Informative , we r in class .Thank you Team the Investigator
I support omulangira with his effort to clean the mess.
Thanks Boss
The second episode, Ndugu is missed. But thanks... though Buganda is gone.. we can't trust it anymore. Tutambulire mu Uganda. Buganda mye.
But the person telling this information a Prince,! and I don't think all the thieves he talked of a Buganda!otherwise stay tuned to understand.blessings.
You will note that presently the illegal Buganda Land Board wants to claim the land at Kaazi using a forged title. But this is legally impossible because of the legalese subsequent.
For over a century, since this Court's decision in
Marden, a forged deed has been treated in New York as void ab initio. As the Court recognized [*8]in Riverside, a statute of limitations cannot validate what is void at its inception. Therefore, a void deed is not subject to a statutory time bar.
However, under well-established real property principles, because only a holder of legal title may convey an interest in real property, no property interest can be conveyed by a forged title like the one the BLB is using to claim the land at Kaazi, and no person may be a bona fide purchaser of real estate on the force of such title. Moreover, our recording statute does not apply to a forged deed, with the consequence that recording a forged deed cannot transfer title. We, thus, decline the Buganda Land Board's invitation to unsettle this established doctrine to the detriment of our state's real property recording system.
To adopt Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole's position is to permit a forged title to accomplish, by the mere passage of time, what has always been forbidden - the encumbrance and transfer of title. Neither law nor public policy nor common sense dictates such outcome. Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole' fails to present a compelling reason to overturn or ignore our prior case law in the area of real property because as we have recognized, "parties in business transactions depend on the certainty of settled rules, 'in real property more than any other area of the law, where established precedents are not lightly to be set aside'" (172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Ass'n, Inc., 24 NY3d 528, 535 [2014], citing Holy Properties Ltd., L.P. v Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 87 NY2d 130, 134 [1995]). No less so with respect to forged deeds and titles as well, because landowners, banks, mortgagees, insurers, and a myriad of others depend on the simple rule that a forged deed and title as well is a legal nullity that cannot divest ownership or serve to encumber real property..
WOW - COURTS HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE IN PETITIONS - THE LITIGANTS HAVE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE AND PRESENT IT BEFORE THE COURTS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A FAIR OR FAVOURABLE JUDGEMENT WITHOUT BIAS - THANK YOU.
Thanks FSLC
Thanks for the show
Wow wow wow am a Lawyer but this guy just showed me that I haven't studied any corporate law ...wow ...he's so knowledgeable
TAKE HIM INFRONT OF APOLLO MAKUBUYA OR DF MPANGA and ur see how funny he will look . This isn't even cop law ! Jumping from one thing to another with low analytical skills and factually inaccurate statements that have thrown him in jail on many occasions . He is some fraud .
his research is wide, very informative much as he is not a lawyer@@mikesebastian825
But if APOLLO MAKUBUYA OR DF MPANGA are serious lawyers as you think then Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) would have never happened. They are also free to explain there positions on this blog, please engage them so that they can litigate here and now for this is a court of public opnion.
These laws you are talking about are behind the mess we see in Sudhir Rupaleria (Miscellaneous Application No. 1063 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 153 (21 December 2017) .
Fresh details have emerged as to why Bank of Uganda (BoU) dropped lawyers from MMAKS and AF Mpanga in mediation talks between Crane Bank (in receivership/BoU) and property mogul Sudhir Ruparelia.
Daily Monitor reports that it was the Principal Judge Yorakamu Bamwine who advised Bank of Uganda to appoint new lawyers after City tycoon Sudhir Ruparelia and his team threatened to walk away from mediation.
The parties had earlier been advised by the head of Commercial Court judge, David Wangutusi to seek for an out-of-court settlement before it’s too late.
The decision to drop MMAKS Advocates and AF Mpanga Advocates, who represent Bank of Uganda in the case of Crane Bank liquidation (takeover), came after Mr Ruparelia rejected mediation talks involving the two law firms he accuses of conflict of interest.
The businessman had vowed not to take part in any talks when MMAKS and AF Mpanga law firms are involved.
But when justice Bamwine took over from city lawyer, Ms Harriet Magara as the mediator in one of the high-profile cases, he advised BoU to appoint new lawyers.
He also informed BoU officials that Mr Sudhir had raised serious objections bordering on conflict of interest and insisted that MMAKS and AF Mpanga were his witnesses in the main case. So Boss you just fear names and thats were we have a diffrence, if you think these people are good engage them and we go to court and you will learn something new.
WOW - SHOCK AND AWE - WHERE HAS THIS KNOWLEDGE OF BUGANDA KINGDOM; BUGANDA PUBLIC COMPANY; AND THE PRIVATE COMPANY IN BETWEEN INTERPRETATION BEEN ALL ALONG FROM THE KINGDOM INSIDERS LIKE THE PRINCES AND THE PRINCESSES - EH - KAWEDDEMU?
Omulangira Nakibinge K Kimbugwe abadde abagamba nti ObwaKabaka bwa Buganda obw'ennono bwaggwaawo my 1897 nga Cwa II afuulibwa "Kabaka" nga Kitaawe akyaali mulamu. Mwenna nemumukyaawa. Kati mubilaba nti Buganda was a Company even at Independence, Mubuuza Abalangira gyebabadde. Naye Abaganda mwaaba ki?
This is HOT!!!
where is episode 2? i think u made a mistake and uploaded 3 instead of 2...please look into it.
Nange njinonya silaba
Watching from Fort portal my favorite channel
We appreciate Ndugu
Kakamega is the primary problem of Buganda and Uganda so if we get rid of them Uganda will be freed
mututangaaze ku ownership ya buganda land board. who are the share holders?
wow wow wow you at safer side when you do not have this information because you can cry and hurt for your country ensi kati munyago.
Ekitegeeza abasajja abo aba Kakamega tulina bakwaata kabadiya nga tebanaffa batudize sente zaffe. Ebintu ebyo okimanyi nti bivumaganya Kabaka wamu no Buganda 😢😢. Okimanyi abantu bajja kukyaawa Kabaka Mutebi nga balowooza ali mukobaane??
Mr Stanley, it's been a long time
However, I have liked "white collar crime"
White collar crime is defined as non-violent crimes committed, directly or indirectly, for financial gain generally fall under the category of “white collar crime.” This is particularly true when the person or persons accused of illegal activity are professionals in business, particularly finance, or government..Financial crimes and the government’s prosecution of them are not limited to Buganda Kingdom, Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole, Buganda Land Board and related parties to it and corporate boardrooms. The category also includes offenses that could be the work of individuals or small groups. The state governments have enacted an enormous body of law regarding financial crimes, and it can be relatively easy for people to run afoul of these laws without even realizing it.
No single definition of “white collar crime” exists in the law. Sociologist Edwin Sutherland is credited with coining the term, using it for the first time in a speech to the American Sociological Society in Philadelphia on December 27, 1939. He noted that police seemed to focus their attention on crime among the “lower class,” while ignoring crimes committed among “business and professional men,” people he described as “merchant princes and captains of finance and industry.” The “robber barons” of the late nineteenth century, he stated, were white collar criminals, but they were not as “suave and deceptive” as those of the Great Depression era. The people involved with the running of the Buganda Land Board Private Limited incorporated after the ruling in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) fit into the definition of white collar criminals because they have been illegally running the corporate in breach of effects 38 and 39 of the Company Act 2012 of the laws of Uganda.
These are the extracts from the Company Act 2012 for which the directors of the Buganda Kingdom are in breach.
38. Prohibition on trading under misleading name
(1)A person who is not a public company commits an offence if he or she carries on any trade, profession or business under a name which includes as its last part, the words “public limited liability company”.
(2)A public company commits an offence if in circumstances in which the fact that it is a public company is likely to be material to any person, it uses a name which may reasonably be expected to give the impression that it is a private company.
(3)A company or officer of a company who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand currency points or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine not exceeding twenty thousand currency points.
39. Prohibition of improper use of “limited”
A person shall not trade or carry on business under a name or title of which “limited” or any contraction or imitation of that word is the last word, unless duly incorporated with limited liability.
The failure to comply with provisions of the law meant that the directors of the Buganda Land Board exercised power illegally with material irregularity, which rendered their actions of incorporating the Buganda Land Board Private Limited Company in breach of the prior company law dictates null and void. It was held Makula International Ltd. v. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & A’ nor [1982] HCB 11 that an illegality once brought to the attention of court cannot be condoned. For this reason I humbly pray that you do not deal with the Buganda Land Board
Mukulu Stanely are we allowed to come to Yaya and attend a live show while you are filming nga we watch while eating food?
Ii is very much allowed Pew. Yaya is a peoples` home
Katende is the same as Mayiga.. Katende is Mayiga's mantour and Lumbuye Kajubi always said this... And Al what Katendw's father did to Kabaka and Buganda kingdom.. We are having SNAKES in Mengo...
Its a calling to our society, let those go to state house and be paid, here on this platform we dont blackmail,we specialize on facts,credit to UNN tv and TV10 ne uganda eyenkya TV
MR STENLEY please talk about the young boys and girls which where abducted and took them to mubende mining sites , they lied to them that they are going to work in uae then after they told them that they are going to use kenya airport so they parked hundreds and droped them in mubende mining sites, this info is 100% collect
whats your source? give him leads to make research
Hello Chard, kindly call 0752799909 and ask for Mr. Ndawula for further management
Mulangila atusomesa cooperate guvernance wano gwebatatusomesa mu LLB ku MUK , so it's easy to find very many lawyers nga tebalina this kind of knowledge.
I have watched this episode twice but am asking myself oba tulagawa wano ekigambo kya taata wa ndungu kyeyagamba buli bweyali afudikira embozi
Me and here for third round😮
Batuba
Your show is so outstanding very Informative but the only issue I have is please stop creating excuse for the kabaka he sees and knows what's going on and trust me he is going to be on the wrong side of buganda history
True but when taking that position, I have taken the wisdom with which the case is Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010)
Docket No.
08-1394
Granted:
October 13, 2009
Argued:
March 1, 2010
Decided:
June 24, 2010
Annotation
was done. The shareholders were let off the hook and the fire went direct to the directors. The same wisdom was applied in ASIC v Healey & Ors [2011] FCA 717.
In ASIC v Healey & Ors [2011] FCA 717.,Justice Middleton of the Federal Court of Australia found that the directors were in breach of their directors’ duties under the Corporations Act. Justice Middleton found that a director cannot simply ‘go through the paces’ when signing off on financial statements. While a director can rely upon others to prepare the financial statements, the requirements for directors under the Corporations Act does not allow directors to simply discharge the responsibility of accurate financial statements to another competent and reliable person.
A director is required to read, understand and apply his or her own knowledge to financial statements before approving them.
Justice Middleton found that the errors in the accounts were well known to the directors, or if not well known to them, should have been. On this basis Justice Middleton found that the directors failed to take all reasonable steps required of them. Consequently, they failed to exercise the care and diligence required by directors under the law and thereby breached the relevant Corporations Law directors’ duties provisions.
An argument was raised that the sheer volume of information provided in the financial reports is beyond what a reasonable director can digest and analyse. Justice Middleton rejected this and stated that if a director is provided with too much information in regards to a company, so that they cannot understand all its workings, then the director must decrease the volume of information provided to them or increase the amount of time prescribed to absorb the information.
So the people should look at the directors of the Buganda Kingdom,Buganda Land Board and the Kabaka of Buganda Corporation sole. To those with trust in Apollo Nelson Makubuya and David Mpanga, please engage them on best practice.
Kirabika, ne Buganda is illegal. Ndowooza ne Buganda tugigyewo. The bickering in the institution of Buganda is what brought about Obote abolishing it. This time its the Baganda who will abolish the institution. Tulisobola tutya okwesiga omuntu yenna. Kubanga ne Kabaka tamanyi kigenda mumaaso.
Naye court si yelina okunonya obujulizi. John Wampamba had to bring the evidence to court.
True boss but the matter was decided ex parte.. But even were cases are decided ex parte its encumbent on the people involved to make full disclosures to court without concealing anything like we see people do in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014).The clean hands doctrine is based on the maxim of equity which states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim.
It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly & correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. He owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and desist from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising due diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence.
If a petitioner/appellant/applicant is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to summarily deny relief to such person to prevent an abuse of the process of law and reject the Petition/Appeal on this ground alone without going to the merits of the case. The Apex Court has repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance:
State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 431,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 333,
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and others (1994) 1 SCC 1,
Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and others (1996) 4 SCC 297,
Union of India and others v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92,
Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 and
G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141.
The Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidy vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853 at p. 855 has elucidated this doctrine thus:
The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based upon falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
So in the ex parte judgement, in Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014), it was incumbent of Kizito Bashir Juma to say the truth in line with the principles above and with the intention of satisfying the conditions of res judicata, since he did not, then the ruling is subject to discovery abuse whose repurcusiions you should know counsel.
Omulangira wa Buganda mu muwe akatebe mweye gazanyiza banange, kona kafunda talina naweyekyusiza!!
Bagambeko wamma
Ffe batumba dda mu Buganda land board buli twasooka kubawa million emu mwe mitwalo abiri buli mwaka tubade tubawa emitwalo abiri prince jjuko webale nyo nakwewayo okuyamba enyo abantu
Please do not think you lost it.Please keep your receipts and records. They will help us a lot when investigations begin. People will be held accountable like they were done so in Uganda v Kazinda and 3 Others (HCT-00-AC-SC 47 of 2012) [2021] UGHCACD 9 (8 October 2021).
Tusanyusse okubalaba lelo, gwe agitudemu bwomu
MALE MABIRIZI WAS MADE TO LOOK LIKE A CHILD IN COURT AGAINST BUGANDA . HE LIKES BEING SEEN ON TV
True Male Mabirizi was ill prepared just like the lawyers we see in cases like Madhivani Group Ltd v Simbwa & Ors (Civil Suit No. 615 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 32 (30 September 2014),Kalemera v The Kabaka of Buganda & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 10 (10 August 2017) ,Prince Kalemera & Anor (Administrator of the estate of the Late HRH Sir Daudi Chwa II) v The Kabaka of Buganda & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017) [2020] UGHCLD 16 (28 September 2020) and Buganda Land Board v Wampamba (Miscellaneous Cause No. 622 of 2013) [2014] UGHCLD 91 (20 February 2014) among others. I know we are a diffrent breed and this can be seen from the quality and quantity of the talk shows that we are driving on the investigator. We are a continuum of well seasoned professionals
BUGANDA LAND BOARD TEGABA BYAPA !!!!!! STOP FOOLING PEOPLE .
kyaapa mungalo who doesnt know about it
JUST GOOGLE THE NAME OF THAT GUY AND YOU WILL LAUGH . HIS NAME IS JUUKO JOSEPH KIYIMBA . 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 HE IS A DREAMER ! GENDA BUGENZI KU YITANENTI OTEKEMU JUUKO JOSEPH KIYIMBA . WESOMELE OJA KUSEKA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 . ALWAYS IN JAIL . ASIIBA MU KOMERA , DEPORTED FROM USA , HAS BEEN TO LUZIRA SEVERAL TIMES . DEFAMATION CASES . MUFELE 😂😂😂😂😂😂 .......
Is he lying about BLB stuff ?
@@sempanyijohn5644 yes ofcourse . BLB does not offer land titles . THAT MAN was taken to court and subsequently thrown in jail. Like I said Google out his name ( always search for the names of such people ) who claim to know this and that . HE IS NOT EVEN A LAWYER DO AN SUPRISED WHY HE MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE GREEN .
Naked facts this gentleman is disseminating with proof 🧾 on the table.
@@Leeasiimwe FACTS TO ONLY THOSE THAT ARE IGNORANT ABOUT WHAT FACTS ARE . WHAT HE IS SAYING ARE FACTUALLY INNACURATE STATEMENTS AND IT IS THE REASON THEY SUED HIM IN COURT AND WENT TO JAIL .
oyo mike alabika mubbi munaabwe thats why he is putting the guy down@@sempanyijohn5644