A fresh dispute has emerged over the estate of the late businessman Dr James Musinguzi Garuga, with his widow Peace Kesiime Bagorogoza, lawyer Agaba Maguru alias Musigi, and Henry Hapa Nganwa facing accusations that they are trying to turn President Yoweri Museveni into a scapegoat for legal challenges they are allegedly facing over properties linked to Incafex Company Ltd.
The accusations centre on claims that company assets were sold or transferred in a manner that allegedly went against a Supreme Court decision, at a time when the President is said to have stepped in to safeguard shareholder interests and stop further disposal of the estate.
According to correspondence from the Presidency, Museveni was briefed by Mathew Rukiikaire, who describes himself as a shareholder in Incafex Ltd and Garuga Properties. Rukiikaire reportedly told the President that after the death of the majority shareholder, there were deliberate moves to dispose of company properties without board approval.
Rukiikaire is said to have informed Museveni that most of the company’s valuable assets had already been stripped away, leaving him with little to show for what he claims is a 45% stake. He reportedly said only two ranches remained — Ranch No. 9 in Singo and Ranch No. 41 in Masaka.
Rukiikaire is said to have reminded the President that in 2017, a five-member Supreme Court bench ruled in his favour in a shareholding dispute against Incafex U Ltd, confirming his 45% ownership and ordering a special audit to establish the company’s shareholding structure.
He is said to have complained that almost ten years later, the audit had allegedly not been carried out. He therefore asked Museveni to intervene and ensure that compensation for the two remaining ranches, which were taken over by government, was shared in a way that protected his interest.
Specifically, Rukiikaire is reported to have requested that compensation equivalent to his 45% share be paid directly to him, while the balance be deposited in court pending completion of the audit ordered by the Supreme Court.
Museveni is said to have subsequently directed government to start the process of compensating Rukiikaire for his claimed 45% interest, with the remainder to be held in court until the audit at Incafex Ltd is concluded.
The directives were reportedly issued to the Attorney General and the Minister of Lands and Urban Planning.
Following those directives, Bagorogoza, Maguru and their associates are said to have become critical of Museveni for acting on Rukiikaire’s appeal after years of unsuccessful pursuit of justice.
The group is accused of using social media operators and self-styled activists to attack the President and discredit an intervention that supporters of the directive say was aimed at preventing further loss of the late Garuga’s estate.
Sources familiar with the matter claim the group was particularly unhappy because they had allegedly expected the compensation funds to be channelled through accounts under their influence.
One anonymous source alleged that the group had already shared part of an earlier Shs800 million payment released by government to facilitate the late businessman’s medical treatment abroad.
That payment is linked to a long-running compensation dispute arising from the government’s ranch restructuring exercise in the late 1990s, when Ranch 35 in Mawogola, associated with Garuga’s companies, was taken over with a promise of compensation.
The total compensation due was reportedly assessed at about Shs13.7 billion, but payment remained outstanding for years.
In early 2025, Dr Garuga is said to have developed serious health complications requiring specialised treatment abroad. He reportedly petitioned the then Minister of Finance, Matia Kasaija, to release part of the outstanding compensation urgently for his medical care.
Government is said to have later processed a partial payment of Shs800 million under payment reference No. 21418514.
According to documents cited in court proceedings, the money was meant for Garuga Cooperative Ltd’s account at Bank of Africa. It was, however, allegedly deposited into an account belonging to Garuga Properties Ltd, also at Bank of Africa, where Maguru is said to have been a signatory.
Questions have since been raised about how the destination account was allegedly changed before payment, and how the funds were later withdrawn and shared.
After Dr Garuga’s death, disputes over his properties are said to have intensified, with claims of sales and transfers carried out without board resolutions or authorisation.
Maguru, who served as company secretary, is accused of allegedly appointing himself as a director in Garuga Properties Ltd, Incafex Ltd and Kinkiizi Development Company Ltd without board approval.
The Registrar of Companies is said to have later removed him from the list of directors after Rukiikaire petitioned the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB), arguing that the appointments had been secured using forged documents.
It is also recalled that after the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Rukiikaire, court issued an interim injunction restraining Incafex, its directors and agents from selling, mortgaging, pledging or otherwise dealing in several large ranches and estates until the audit was completed.
The properties covered by the orders are said to have included extensive holdings under the Kabula Ranching Scheme, Buruli and Bunyoro Ranching Scheme, Kyabatangwa in Bulemezi, Wabityabya Estate in Bulemezi, Buruli land at Gamba-Wampiti, Wantyaba in Buruli and other estates in Bulemezi, including Lwankoma Estate and Kitintali/Kyambogo.
Despite those restrictions, Bagorogoza, Maguru and Nganwa are accused of proceeding with transactions involving some of the properties.
Among the transactions under scrutiny is the alleged sale of 2,000 acres of Incafex Ltd land in Ngoma, Nakaseke District.
They are also accused of involvement in the alleged sale of about nine square miles of Incafex land in Kabula, Lyantonde District.
Another disputed property is land on Block 1004, Plot 2, Freehold Register, Hectares LUW 38, Folio 3, measuring about 849 hectares in Bulemezi, Ngoma, Nakaseke District. Its title is alleged to have been transferred into the names of Charles Byaruhanga.
Other properties said to have been disposed of in disregard of court orders include a 296.74-hectare estate on Block 516, Plot 12, at Busanga, Kome Island, Kyaggwe.
That property was reportedly leased to Erunger Property Limited, a company alleged to have fictitious or non-existent directors. The lease agreement is said to have been prepared by Maguru’s law firm in 2024, allegedly without Dr Garuga’s knowledge.
The group is further accused of involvement in the alleged misappropriation of funds belonging to three companies whose business empire is said to span more than 25 factories and over 3,600 land titles, without the necessary board authorisation.
Legal observers quoted in the matter argue that Bagorogoza and her associates should not use Museveni’s directive as a cover for their legal troubles, saying the intervention stemmed from a long-standing shareholding dispute already determined by the Supreme Court.
They maintain that the President’s action was intended to protect a shareholder whose 45% stake had been recognised by the country’s highest court.
One legal observer said the matter should be understood in the context of the Supreme Court injunction and the need to protect the company’s remaining assets.
“It is a case involving a Supreme Court injunction in which five justices sat and unanimously agreed that Rukiikaire was a 45 per cent shareholder in Incafex,” the observer said.
Rukiikaire is also described as a shareholder in Garuga Properties, a subsidiary of Incafex Company Ltd.
