only evict tenants for non-payment of this rent leave the registered owners with practically no authority over“their” land. This might be understandable and apt for land which is occupied by tenants who are heirs of bibanja holders who already had been on the plot with authorisation of the Busuulu and Envujjo Law of 1928 or the Toro or Ankole Landlord and Tenant Law. It is however problematic for so called bona fide occupants who are given security of occupancy by the mere fact that they have been occupying land unchallenged by the owner for 12 years before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution(i.e. since October 8, 1983) 33 . At first glance, it appears that by providing security of tenure for such occupants, the Land Act only replicates the position that already exists under the Limitations Act. According to this Act, no action for recovery of land shall be brought before a court after the expiration of 12 years from the time such rights arose. However, under the Limitations Act, the period of 12 years does not apply where the person having right of action was under legal disability. This means it would not apply to landlords who, due to exile, displacement or being minor, were unable to enforce their rights. However, the Land Act makes no provision for such instances. Since many owners cannot be blamed for not claiming their rights during the years of unrest in the seventies and beginning of the eighties, it appears unjust to deprive them of all their authority over their land. The situation is further complicated by the fact that most landlords are not identical with, or heirs of those to whom land was assigned by the 1900 Agreement. Rather, they bought their land from somebody, and thus expect authority over their land as return for their investment. The restriction of rights is also problematic in cases where landlords have allowed people to settle on their land without special licence or leasehold contract for less than 12 years. These occupants, even if allowed to only settle temporarily, qualify as“lawful occupants” under the Land Act and cannot be evicted if the owner wants to use his land differently. This is hard to understand given that it was solely the consent of the owner to temporarily settle on the land which made them lawful occupants. Where consent is given only for a limited time, after that time, it should be possible to end the occupancy and use that land otherwise. Correspondingly, it is often hard to understand for registered owners why they should have no authority over their land. Meanwhile, there is a great demand for land, especially in the central region, which steadily increases in commercial value. As a consequence, land owner’s have tried to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the law by selling of the land titles to people who have either the money to compensate the occupants or the army muscle to evict them forcefully 34 . The major cause of the evictions taking place is thus not non-payment of 33 For this position cf. also: The Uganda Land Alliance, The Land(Amendment) Bill: Transforming Power Relations on Land Equivocally,(March 2008), p. 6. 34 Cf.“Land: 87.8% are potential evictees”, The New Vision, Special Report, February 23, 2008 and“Sudanese refugees back Mengo on Land Bill”, Daily Monitor, March 12, 2008. 12