Wakiso, Uganda | ENTEBBENEWS.NET | The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the prosecution of city property broker Muhamadi Kamoga over allegations of fraud and forgery related to a 200-acre land dispute in Garuga, Wakiso District. In a ruling delivered by Justice Monica Mugenyi, sitting as a Single Judge, the Court dismissed Kamoga’s application seeking an interim order to halt the criminal trial, allowing proceedings at the Entebbe Chief Magistrate’s Court to resume.
Kamoga, who operates Kamoga Property Consultants, had petitioned the Court to stay the criminal trial, arguing that the matter was already subject to an ongoing civil case before the High Court. However, Justice Mugenyi ruled that justice would be better served by allowing the criminal trial to proceed without further delay. “I am unable to discern any travesty of justice that an interim order of stay would seek to deflect. The ends of justice are better served by the expeditious prosecution of the criminal case,” she ruled.
In September 2023, Kamoga was charged with forgery, uttering false documents, and obtaining registration by false pretence. These charges arise from his alleged fraudulent acquisition of 200 acres of land in Bukaya and Bugoba villages in Katabi Town Council, land which is said to belong to businessman Peter Bibangamba.
In November 2023, the High Court stayed Kamoga’s prosecution, citing the ongoing civil case as a potential conflict. The court held that conducting the criminal trial before resolving the civil matter would be improper. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) challenged the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal. The appellate court overturned the stay, finding that the High Court had misapplied the law, particularly Section 209 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which pertains to civil, not criminal, proceedings.
Still dissatisfied, Kamoga filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking an interim stay of execution pending the hearing of his main appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2024) and a related application (Criminal Application No. 2 of 2025). In her ruling, Justice Mugenyi found that the High Court had overstepped its supervisory authority by issuing a permanent stay on the prosecution. She stated that this was contrary to Section 17(2) of the Judicature Act, which is intended to ensure the swift and efficient administration of justice.
The Judge also emphasized that the decision to initiate criminal proceedings lies squarely with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. Courts, she noted, should only intervene in exceptional circumstances, such as when a fair trial is impossible or where the judicial system’s integrity is under threat. “It has not been established before me that the applicant would not undergo a fair trial… or that the criminal justice system would be compromised by his prosecution,” she stated.
Justice Mugenyi further clarified that the criminal trial would not prejudice the ongoing civil proceedings and that Kamoga would still have an opportunity to defend himself. She noted that the accused could present evidence, including the claim that the complainant, Peter Bibangamba, had voluntarily signed the land transfer forms at the center of the dispute. “I take the view that the impending prosecution of that case would not necessarily amount to a threat to the applicant’s right to a fair trial, but rather the commencement of a legal process by the constitutionally mandated office.
Indeed, not only do criminal proceedings generally take precedence over civil proceedings, the applicant’s pending civil suit would not be jeopardised by his prosecution insofar as the latter proceedings offers him the opportunity to rebut the allegations of forgery with the evidence that the impugned land transfer forms had been signed by one Peter Bibangamba, the complainant,” ruled Mugenyi.
During the hearing, Kamoga was represented by lawyer Brian Kusingura Tindyebwa, while the Directorate of Public Prosecutions was represented by Chief State Attorney Happiness Ainebyoona.
*****
URN
