Busia Governor Paul Otuoma found guilty of contempt over disputed public land

Busia County Governor Paul Otuoma. (Elvis Ogina, Standard)

The Environment and Land Court in Busia has found Governor Paul Otuoma guilty of contempt of court for willfully disobeying orders over alleged illegal dealings in public land worth millions.

Justice Boaz Olao cited Otuoma and former County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Lands, Peter Khasamule Odima for contempt stating that the governor knowingly ignored court orders suspending construction, reallocation and other dealings involving land occupied by Busia Vocational Training Centre (BVTC), Soko Posta Market and the Agricultural Training College (ATC) pending determination of a petition filed by Senator Okiya Omtatah.

“I am persuaded that Omtatah has placed before this court sufficient evidence to satisfy that Otuoma and Odima are in contempt of Court. Obedience of Court orders is not optional,” the judge ruled, adding that courts must uphold the rule of law by punishing those who defy orders irrespective of their status.

Further, the court directed that both officials appear in person on March 2, 2026, for sentencing.

“The 1st Respondent H.E. Dr Paul Nyongesa Otuoma and the 2nd Respondent Mr Peter Khasamule Odima shall appear before this Court in person… to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail,” Justice Olao ordered.

The contempt proceedings arose from a petition filed by Senator Omtatah in June 2024 against the County Executive of Busia, the CECM for Lands and Urban Planning, and Mutiso Menezes International Consultants.

Omtatah accused the respondents of violating constitutional provisions by converting public land occupied by Busia Vocational Training Centre (BVTC), Soko Posta Market and the Agricultural Training College (ATC) into private ownership.

Following the filing of the petition, the court issued conservatory orders on June 27, 2024, later extended on July 10, 2024, restraining the respondents from “engaging in any dealings or transactions” on the disputed land.

“In order to obviate any need for contempt proceedings, the Respondents shall suspend any further activity on the suit land,” the July 10, 2024 order stated.

However, Omtatah returned to court in April 2025 seeking contempt sanctions, accusing the county government of permitting continued construction, fencing and other developments on the disputed land despite the subsisting orders.

He accused the county government of encouraging illegal allottees to develop the land in order to defeat the case and permanently alter public property.

In allowing the contempt application by Omtatah, Justice Olao found that Governor Otuoma failed to personally respond to the allegations, despite the seriousness of the sanctions sought.

“It follows therefore that H.E. Dr Paul Nyongesa Otuoma the Governor Busia has not responded to the Petitioner’s Motion accusing him of disboying this court orders,” the judge said, noting that contempt proceedings are personal in nature and require direct responses from the alleged contemnors.

The court also found contradictions in the county’s defence, particularly a letter dated May 27, 2024, authored by Odima in his official capacity, which expressly acknowledged plans to relocate BVTC and reallocate the land to Busia County Referral Hospital.

“The current parcel of land where the Vocational Centre is domiciled has been re-allocated to Busia County Referral Hospital (BCRH) for expansion,” the letter stated.
Justice Olao ruled that the respondents could not deny knowledge of developments on the land after making such admissions.

“He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time,” the judge stated.

The court rejected arguments that contempt had not been proved, finding that Omtatah had met the required standard of proof.

As a result, the court allowed Omtatah’s application and ordered Governor Otuoma and Odima to file undertakings within 14 days, committing to comply with all previous court orders.

Failure to do so, the judge warned, would see them denied the audience before the court when they appear in court in March 2026

The court declined to award costs, but emphasised that the proceedings were necessary to safeguard the rule of law and the authority of the Judiciary.