Businessman Nzeyi Refuses to Vacate Temangalo Land Unless NSSF Buys His Remaining 55 Acres

Businessman Amos Nzeyi has stated he will not relinquish possession of 55 acres of land in Temangalo, Wakiso District, which the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) acquired from him in 2008. His lawyer, Peter Kabatsi, informed the parliamentary Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Cosase) that Mr. Nzeyi has two non-negotiable terms.

According to Mr. Kabatsi, Mr. Nzeyi is prepared to either have NSSF purchase all the land he still owns in Temangalo or, alternatively, he will remain on the disputed 55 acres and refund the NSSF’s initial payment. The land in question is part of a larger parcel of 463.87 acres that NSSF bought for Shs11 billion from Mr. Nzeyi and ARMA Ltd. Despite NSSF holding the land titles, Mr. Nzeyi has continued to occupy this specific 55-acre portion, which is adjacent to his residence.

NSSF Managing Director Patrick Ayota indicated the Fund is open to considering reasonable proposals from Mr. Nzeyi, though no formal offer has been received yet. “We will go with what’s going to be the best thing for the Fund,” Mr. Ayota stated, adding that this is the first “solid” alternative proposal to emerge in the long-standing dispute. However, NSSF has also initiated legal proceedings to secure an eviction order, as an eviction notice issued in June expired without compliance.

Adding complexity to the situation, it was revealed that the disputed land includes a route providing access to other NSSF land designated for a housing estate. Cosase chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi has given both parties one week to negotiate an amicable settlement before reconvening, and has summoned Mr. Nzeyi to appear in person. The committee expressed impatience with the protracted nature of the dispute, which has spanned 18 years since the initial transaction.

The Temangalo land saga dates back to an initial purchase agreement and a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) where Mr. Nzeyi was meant to retain a portion of the land containing his farmhouse in exchange for providing alternative land. However, NSSF claims the alternative land offered did not meet the agreement’s criteria, leading to the ongoing conflict over possession.