The nearly two-decade dispute between the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) and businessman Amos Nzeyi over land at Temangalo, Wakiso District is about to be resolved.
The two sides have reportedly agreed on a settlement that will see NSSF receive ten acres of alternative land while Nzeyi retains his home and surrounding pasture by purchasing 45 acres for the Fund at the current market value.
The agreement was reached on Monday, August 24, 2026, following renewed mediation by Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), which has been investigating the long-running dispute.
Under the terms agreed by the parties, Nzeyi will transfer 10 acres of alternative land that has been assessed as suitable for NSSF.
He will then purchase the remaining 45 acres that are currently occupied by his country home, paddocks and pasture.
The 45 acres will be valued at current market rates by both private valuers and the Chief Government Valuer.
The transaction will also be subject to the Fund’s statutory approval processes.
The settlement provides that, once those conditions are met, Nzeyi’s country home and the pasture where his cattle are kept will remain with him and the title to the 45-acre portion will revert to him.
NSSF’s Managing Director, Patrick Ayota told the committee that the arrangement was reached during a meeting with Nzeyi and his lawyers earlier on Monday.
The Fund described it as an amicable settlement that would allow it to recover the land or its equivalent value while bringing the protracted dispute closer to an end.
The agreement, however, is not yet the final completion of the transaction.
NSSF said it must still go through its internal approval process, while the valuation and other statutory requirements must be completed.
The Temangalo saga dates back to March 2008, when NSSF purchased approximately 463.87 acres from Nzeyi and Arma Limited for about Shs11 billion.
The land was covered by several certificates of title, which NSSF says were subsequently transferred into the Fund’s name.
The complication arose from a Memorandum of Understanding signed alongside the sale agreement. Under that arrangement, Nzeyi was to retain about 104.88 acres containing his farmhouse, paddocks and other developments, but was expected to provide NSSF with suitable alternative land.
However, the proposed land swap was never fully completed and attempts to resolve the disagreement continued for years before the parties referred the matter to arbitration in 2013.
The resulting award provided for a land swap under which Nzeyi would retain his country home and developments while providing suitable alternative land to NSSF.
What was initially a dispute involving more than 100 acres was subsequently narrowed to about 55 acres.
NSSF says that, over the years, Nzeyi provided alternative land for assessment, but independent assessments found that only about 10 acres were suitable for the Fund’s intended purposes.
In June 2026, NSSF demanded that Nzeyi transfer the suitable 10 acres and make available the remaining 45 acres.
When the demand was not met, NSSF began steps to enforce its rights and seek vacant possession of the contested land, including pursuing legal action over the 55 acres.
The dispute returned to the spotlight this month when COSASE inspected the Temangalo property as part of its scrutiny of NSSF’s operations and Auditor General queries.
During the inspection, MPs found Nzeyi still occupying part of the land, including areas used for his home, farming and cattle grazing.
The committee questioned why NSSF had failed to obtain full possession nearly 18 years after purchasing the property.
NSSF subsequently explained that although the Fund holds the titles to the purchased property, the unresolved land-swap arrangement had prevented it from obtaining physical possession of the disputed portion.
Nzeyi maintained that the dispute had been misrepresented and repeatedly stressed that his principal concern was clearing his name.
Appearing before COSASE, he said the controversy had damaged his reputation with international business partners.
He also disputed the suggestion that he had simply refused to surrender land that he had sold, arguing that the sale agreement, subsequent MOU and arbitration award had to be considered together.
