Muwema & Co. Advocates and Solicitors has filed a lawsuit in the High Court seeking more than 15 billion shillings in compensation for what it calls an unlawful eviction from its Kololo offices, an operation the firm says disrupted its legal practice, damaged property and led to the loss of cash and confidential client files.
The law firm, represented by KSMO Advocates, filed Civil Suit No. 222 of 2026 in the Civil Division of the High Court against Downtown Investments Ltd., businessman Paresh Kumar Ratilal Mehta, lawyers Roger Mugabi and Rukia Adam, Ahmed Bongo, Fredrick Byatukoreire, A1 Security Systems Ltd. and the Attorney General.
The complaint says the firm was evicted March 6, 2026, from its offices at Plot 50 Windsor Crescent, Kololo, in violation of the Constitution (Land Evictions) (Practice) Directions, 2021. Muwema & Co. contends the eviction occurred without the mandatory 90-day notice or a court-issued warrant, contravening constitutional safeguards for property rights, human dignity and security during evictions.
The firm also alleges the respondents falsely characterized the operation as a lawful “re-entry,” a claim it argues was legally unavailable under the circumstances.
The suit accuses lawyers Roger Mugabi and Rukia Adam of breaching their professional obligations as officers of the court by allegedly participating in and supervising the eviction while litigation over the same property remained pending before the High Court. According to the firm, the lawyers abandoned the judicial process under High Court Civil Suit No. 621 of 2023 and instead took part in an eviction conducted outside the established legal process.
The law firm also accuses Ahmed Bongo and Fredrick Byatukoreire of supervising groups of youths who allegedly dismantled office partitions, disconnected electrical installations, damaged office equipment and packed legal documents into sacks during the eviction. A1 Security Systems Limited is accused of deploying security guards to participate in the operation despite regulations that prohibit private security companies from taking part in disputed property matters.
The firm further alleges that its signpost was destroyed and confidential legal files were mishandled during the exercise. The Attorney General has been sued on behalf of the Uganda Police Force, which Muwema & Co. accuses of facilitating and enforcing the eviction without first verifying the existence of a valid court warrant. According to the suit, the police failed in their constitutional and statutory duty to preserve law and order and protect property by enforcing an eviction while ownership of the premises remained the subject of ongoing court proceedings.
The firm says it later reported the matter to police under reference KMP East GEF 49/2026, but alleges that investigations stalled after some of the respondents argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature. Court documents indicate that when the firm’s property was eventually returned in late April following a police-supervised inventory, much of the equipment had allegedly been damaged or rendered unusable.
Among the claims before the court is that USD 250,000, allegedly kept in a partner’s office safe, and Sh37 million, reportedly stored in the founding partner’s office drawer, disappeared during the eviction. The firm also claims that the office safe was never returned. Muwema & Co. says the eviction forced it to suspend operations for nearly two months, resulting in cancelled court appearances, disrupted client meetings and interference with other professional engagements.
The firm further argues that widespread media coverage damaged its reputation, while the alleged exposure of confidential client files undermined advocate-client privilege and led to the loss or destruction of legal records. It also says it incurred substantial costs relocating its offices to Plot 40 Nakasero Road, including expenditure on rent, office partitioning, furniture, computers, transport and other operational requirements.
The law firm is seeking compensation for alleged business losses valued at USD 3.418 million, reimbursement of relocation expenses, compensation for the allegedly missing cash, general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages, interest at 20 per cent per annum, and the costs of the suit.
It is also asking the court to declare that the eviction was illegal, that the respondents unlawfully interfered with its business operations, trespassed on and converted its property, invaded its privacy by accessing confidential client information, and that the third and fourth defendants breached their professional duties as officers of the court.
In addition, the firm seeks a declaration that the Uganda Police acted unlawfully by facilitating the eviction without legal authority, making the Attorney General vicariously liable. The case has not yet been heard, and none of the defendants has filed a defence. The allegations contained in the suit are yet to be tested before the court.
