KAMPALA — Sixteen years after Parliament first questioned why the National Social Security Fund could hold titles to land at Temangalo but still be unable to take possession of it, the same dispute has returned to the centre of scrutiny.
The immediate question is deceptively simple: who owns the 55 acres, and why is NSSF still struggling to use land it says it bought nearly two decades ago?
The answer, however, lies in a chain of agreements, disputed land swaps, arbitration, valuations, parliamentary inquiries and, most recently, an attempted eviction.
Five days after the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) visited the Temangalo property, members were confronted with a proposal from businessman Amos Nzeyi that could potentially end the standoff — but would also raise another set of questions.
Through his lawyer, Peter Kabatsi, Nzeyi told the committee that he was prepared to leave the contested land if NSSF bought the portion he still occupies.
If the Fund does not want to buy it, Kabatsi offered another option: Nzeyi would refund the money NSSF paid for the disputed portion.
Neither proposal immediately resolves the central puzzle.
If NSSF already bought the land in 2008, what exactly would it be buying now?
And if Nzeyi is to refund the money, how would nearly two decades of changing land values, developments and legal disputes be accounted for?
Those questions have pushed the Temangalo saga back into the spotlight.
A deal that was supposed to end quickly
According to NSSF, the Fund purchased 463.87 acres at Temangalo in 2008 from Arma Limited and Nzeyi.
The land was covered by six certificates of title, which NSSF says are all registered in the Fund’s name.
But ownership on paper did not translate into possession on the ground.
A separate memorandum of understanding allowed Nzeyi to temporarily retain 104.88 acres, including a farmhouse, paddocks and other developments.
The arrangement was not supposed to last indefinitely.
NSSF says Nzeyi was expected to provide suitable alternative land within six months.
The alternative arrangement later became the fault line running through the entire dispute.
By October 2011, NSSF says, Nzeyi was expected to cede 50 acres and provide another 64.5 acres elsewhere. The proposal was rejected by the minister responsible for the matter, according to the Fund.
The dispute eventually moved beyond negotiations and into arbitration in February 2013.
NSSF says the arbitration process upheld a land-swap arrangement involving equal and suitable land adjacent to its property, suitable for the housing developments the Fund had planned and free from squatters.
But the replacement land did not resolve the problem.
NSSF says two independent assessments conducted over the years found that only about 10 acres of the alternative land offered by Nzeyi were suitable.
That left approximately 55 acres at the centre of the current dispute.
The land that Parliament keeps revisiting
The remarkable feature of the Temangalo dispute is not simply its age.
It is the fact that Parliament has repeatedly returned to the same unanswered questions.
On October 14, 2010, COSASE was already examining the matter.
The committee was told that NSSF possessed the Temangalo titles but could not fully utilise the land because the vendor remained in occupation.
Richard Byarugaba, who was then involved in NSSF’s management, told MPs that the vendor was still occupying a house he had constructed and had not cleared tenants from the property.
NSSF had written asking him to vacate.
The committee, then under the leadership of MPs including Reagan Okumu, was therefore dealing with a problem that has now outlived several parliamentary terms.
The dispute resurfaced again on February 20, 2026, when COSASE, then chaired by Medard Sseggona, questioned NSSF officials about the land.
Deputy Managing Director Gerald Kasaato told the committee that the litigation was linked to Nzeyi’s desire to swap part of the property.
Rakai Woman MP Juliet Kinyamatama reduced the complexity of the dispute to a pointed question: if Nzeyi was the person who sold the land to NSSF, why was he now seeking a land swap?
Sseggona directed NSSF to submit written evidence and indicated that MPs could visit the property themselves.
They eventually did.
MPs arrive at Temangalo
Last week, COSASE members travelled to Temangalo.
What they found offered a striking illustration of the gap between legal ownership and physical possession.
The disputed portion remained fenced.
Cattle were grazing on the land.
And, according to the account of the inspection, NSSF officials could not lead MPs through property the Fund says belongs to it.
For a parliamentary committee that had been asking questions about the same land for years, the physical reality was difficult to ignore.
The titles may belong to NSSF.
The land, in practical terms, remains contested.
The current COSASE chairman, Muwada Nkunyingi, has now asked NSSF management, led by Managing Director Patrick Ayota, to provide further clarification on the 2008 transaction, ownership and developments on the property.
The committee’s renewed inquiry comes as NSSF says it has begun the process of seeking the High Court’s intervention.
In June, the Fund issued an eviction notice after a deadline for Nzeyi to vacate expired.
NSSF now says it has moved towards court action to secure possession of the remaining 55 acres.
Two decades, two possible exits
Nzeyi’s latest position introduces two possible ways out.
The first is straightforward in principle: NSSF buys the portion he still occupies.
The second is more complicated: Nzeyi refunds NSSF the money paid for the contested land.
But both proposals expose unresolved questions.
If NSSF accepts a fresh purchase, Parliament will have to establish why a Fund that says it acquired the entire 463.87 acres in 2008 would need to purchase part of that same property again.
Would such a transaction amount to recognition of a separate interest held by Nzeyi? Or would it simply be a negotiated settlement intended to bring an exceptionally long dispute to an end?
The refund option presents a different problem.
The original transaction dates back to 2008.
Land values have changed.
The property has remained at the centre of legal and political disputes.
Developments have existed on portions of the land.
And years of arbitration, valuation and attempted negotiations have passed.
So a refund at what value?
The original purchase price?
A current valuation?
Some negotiated figure?
Those are not merely accounting questions. They could determine whether the proposed settlement protects or undermines the interests of NSSF’s millions of savers.
The bigger question: why has nothing changed?
The Temangalo dispute has now crossed at least three parliamentary moments.
It has survived changes in COSASE leadership.
It has survived changes in NSSF management.
It has survived arbitration.
It has survived independent valuations.
And it has survived repeated demands for explanations.
Yet the basic contradiction remains.
NSSF says it owns the land. Nzeyi remains in possession of part of it.
That contradiction is precisely what Parliament is again being asked to unravel.
The Fund’s position is increasingly firm. It says the alternative land provided by Nzeyi failed to satisfy the conditions agreed upon, that only about 10 acres were found suitable by independent assessments, and that it is now seeking legal authority to take possession of the remaining 55 acres.
Nzeyi’s position is equally consequential: if NSSF wants him out, it should either buy his remaining portion or accept a refund.
Between those positions sits a 16-year-old parliamentary question.
In 2010, MPs were asking why NSSF could not use land for which it held titles.
In 2026, they are asking essentially the same thing.
What has changed is that the dispute is now approaching the courts.
What has not changed is possession.
That may be the most revealing fact in the entire Temangalo saga.
Because after 16 years, multiple investigations, an arbitration process, independent valuations and repeated parliamentary scrutiny, the ultimate test is no longer whether NSSF can prove ownership on paper.
It is whether that ownership can finally be translated into control of the land.
For COSASE, the latest inspection may therefore represent more than another chapter in an old dispute.
It may be a test of whether Parliament can turn years of questioning into an outcome.
And after three Parliaments and nearly two decades, the question is no longer simply who owns Temangalo?
It is this: What, exactly, will it take for the Temangalo land dispute to finally end?
