By Karim Were
KAMPALA — Businessman Hassan Basajjabalaba has told Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) that he will challenge any attempt to award the City Square redevelopment project to another developer, arguing that his company secured the tender more than two decades ago and paid Shs1.635 billion to the then Kampala City Council.
Basajjabalaba said the cancelled City Square deal remains part of the compensation claims he has pursued against the Government, raising questions about how the same property could subsequently be offered to another developer without resolving the earlier dispute.
His testimony before COSASE has reopened scrutiny of the long-running controversy surrounding City Square, a strategically located public property in central Kampala that has been the subject of competing interests, redevelopment proposals and legal and financial claims.
Basajjabalaba told the committee that his company won the redevelopment tender in 2001 and fulfilled its financial obligations to Kampala City Council by paying Shs1.635 billion.
He argued that, because the earlier transaction was cancelled and became part of his compensation claim against Government, any fresh attempt to allocate the property to another developer would have to take the outstanding dispute into account.
The businessman questioned the rationale of dealing with the property as though the earlier transaction had never taken place.
Basajjabalaba challenges fresh redevelopment plans
Basajjabalaba’s position before COSASE was centred on the history of the tender and the financial commitments he says his company made after being selected to redevelop City Square.
According to his account, the tender was awarded in 2001, after which his company paid the money required under the agreement to Kampala City Council.
The businessman maintains that the subsequent cancellation of the deal caused financial losses that formed part of his claims against Government.
He therefore questioned whether authorities can legitimately proceed with a new transaction involving the same property while his compensation claim remains relevant to the history of the site.
The dispute highlights the difficulties that can arise when public assets are subjected to successive development arrangements without clear resolution of previous contractual or compensation obligations.
For potential investors, unresolved claims over public property can create uncertainty over ownership rights, contractual obligations and the legal status of redevelopment agreements.
For government agencies and local authorities, such disputes can also expose public institutions to potentially costly compensation claims if earlier agreements are terminated without a clear settlement.
COSASE questions Basajjabalaba’s interest in the land
During the proceedings, COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi questioned how Basajjabalaba acquired an interest in the land.
The question goes to the central issue of whether the businessman’s earlier tender and subsequent payment created a legally enforceable interest in the property or whether his claim is limited to compensation arising from the cancelled transaction.
That distinction is significant because winning a development tender and acquiring ownership or long-term rights over public land are not necessarily the same thing.
A tender may give a successful bidder contractual rights subject to specified conditions, approvals and agreements, while ownership of public land may remain vested in the relevant public authority unless a separate legal transfer is completed.
The committee’s questioning therefore brings into focus the documentation surrounding the 2001 transaction, including the original tender, payment records, contractual terms, cancellation arrangements and any subsequent compensation agreements.
Those records would be important in establishing the precise legal and financial relationship between Basajjabalaba’s company and the authorities responsible for City Square.
The Shs1.635 billion payment
One of the most significant figures presented to the committee was the Shs1.635 billion payment that Basajjabalaba says his company made to Kampala City Council.
The payment is important to the dispute because it provides a financial dimension to his argument that the company did not merely express interest in developing City Square but proceeded with the transaction after winning the tender.
However, the existence of a payment alone does not establish the current ownership or development rights over the property.
Its legal significance would depend on the terms under which the money was paid, the purpose for which it was received, the contractual obligations of each party and what happened after the agreement was cancelled.
Those questions are likely to be central to any assessment of the competing claims surrounding the property.
A dispute with a long history
The City Square controversy dates back more than two decades, placing the current parliamentary scrutiny within a much broader history of disputes over public property and government contracts.
Basajjabalaba has previously pursued compensation from Government over cancelled or disputed business arrangements, making the City Square issue part of a wider history of dealings between the businessman and public institutions.
The latest COSASE proceedings provide an opportunity for lawmakers to examine the specific circumstances surrounding the City Square tender and determine whether public authorities followed appropriate procedures at the time.
They also raise questions about the management of public assets when earlier development agreements are cancelled.
For Kampala, City Square is particularly significant because of its location and potential commercial value. Any major redevelopment of the site could have implications for urban planning, traffic management, public space, commercial activity and the wider transformation of the city centre.
Why the competing claims matter
The dispute is not simply a disagreement between a private businessman and government authorities. It also touches on broader questions about how public land is allocated and developed.
Public authorities are expected to ensure that the management of public property is transparent, properly documented and consistent with applicable procurement and land laws.
When an earlier development agreement is disputed or cancelled, resolving outstanding claims before entering into a new arrangement can help reduce the risk of litigation and compensation liabilities.
The City Square case therefore illustrates the importance of maintaining complete records of public procurement processes and ensuring that contractual disputes are settled before public assets are committed to new transactions.
It also demonstrates why Parliament and oversight bodies such as COSASE can play an important role in examining transactions involving public resources.
Questions over compensation
Basajjabalaba’s argument that the cancelled City Square deal remains part of his compensation claims introduces another important issue: whether Government has already settled, partially settled or continues to dispute the financial consequences of the cancelled transaction.
The details of any compensation process would be necessary to determine the current status of his claim.
Without documentary evidence showing the terms of the original agreement and subsequent government decisions, it would be premature to conclude that Basajjabalaba currently owns City Square or possesses an unrestricted right to redevelop it.
Similarly, it would be premature to conclude that a new developer has a valid claim to the property simply because authorities may have considered another redevelopment proposal.
The committee’s inquiry is therefore significant because it can help establish the documentary and legal history behind the competing positions.
Public interest in City Square
City Square occupies an important position in Kampala’s central business district, making decisions about its future relevant beyond the parties involved in the dispute.
A major redevelopment could potentially generate economic activity, improve the use of urban land and contribute to Kampala’s efforts to modernise its central commercial areas.
At the same time, redevelopment of strategically located public land requires careful consideration of public access, transport, environmental standards, planning regulations and the interests of businesses and residents who use the surrounding area.
The controversy surrounding the earlier tender means that any future redevelopment process is likely to attract considerable public attention.
A transparent process could help establish confidence among investors and the public, while an unresolved dispute could create uncertainty over the property’s future.
Need for documentary clarity
The central questions emerging from the COSASE proceedings are therefore documentary as much as political or commercial.
Among the issues requiring clarification are the terms of the 2001 tender, the circumstances under which Basajjabalaba’s company was selected, evidence of the Shs1.635 billion payment, the reason for cancellation, subsequent government decisions and the status of any compensation claim.
The committee’s questioning about how Basajjabalaba acquired an interest in the land also points to the need to distinguish between contractual rights and actual land ownership.
Establishing that distinction would be essential before any new development agreement is concluded.
It would also help prevent the possibility of conflicting claims involving different developers and public institutions.
Broader implications for public asset management
The City Square dispute carries broader lessons for the management of public assets in Uganda.
Public land can become the subject of prolonged disputes when contractual arrangements are unclear, projects are cancelled or responsibilities between government institutions change.
Such disputes can increase the financial burden on taxpayers if compensation awards or settlements are eventually required.
They can also delay urban development projects and discourage potential investors who may perceive unresolved public-property disputes as a source of commercial and legal risk.
For these reasons, the resolution of the City Square matter could have significance beyond the property itself.
A clear determination of the historical facts, contractual obligations and current legal interests would provide a stronger basis for any future decision concerning redevelopment.
What happens next
Basajjabalaba’s warning that he will challenge any move to give City Square to another developer signals the possibility of further legal or administrative disputes if authorities proceed without addressing his claims.
However, his position remains one side of a dispute that is now being examined by Parliament.
The COSASE inquiry provides an avenue for reviewing the transaction, questioning the parties involved and examining the records necessary to establish what happened.
Until the relevant documentation and positions of all parties are fully considered, claims regarding ownership, redevelopment rights or outstanding compensation should be treated as matters under examination rather than settled facts.
The central issue now is whether the Government can establish a clear legal and financial position over City Square before committing the property to another development arrangement.
Conclusion
The City Square controversy has once again placed questions of public land management, procurement and government compensation under parliamentary scrutiny.
Hassan Basajjabalaba maintains that his company won the redevelopment tender in 2001 and paid Shs1.635 billion to Kampala City Council before the deal was cancelled. He says the transaction remains part of his compensation claims against Government and has vowed to challenge any attempt to hand the property to another developer.
COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi, meanwhile, has questioned the basis of Basajjabalaba’s interest in the land, highlighting the need to establish precisely what rights the original tender created.
The outcome of the parliamentary inquiry could therefore be important not only for the parties involved but also for the future management of City Square and the broader principle of how Uganda handles disputed public assets.
A transparent examination of the original tender, payments, cancellation and subsequent claims will be critical if authorities are to determine the property’s future while minimizing legal uncertainty and protecting public resources.
Source:
