[2024] UGHCLD 299

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO.0029 OF 2018**

## **1. NAWATTI PREXEDA**

#### **2. NNABADDA TEOPISTA**

**3. NAMAZZI RESTY :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS**

#### **VERSUS**

- **1. LUBOYERA RONALD** - **2. LUBOYERA CANAN** - **3. NTAMBI JOHN** - **4. KAVUMA FRED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS**

# **BEFORE; HON. LADY JUSTICE NALUZZE AISHA BATALA JUDGEMENT**

## *Introduction;*

1. The plaintiffs brought this suit seeking declarations and orders inter alia; an order of cancellation of the title of the land at Buyongo Busiro Block 141 Plot No. 27 measuring approximately 0.8120 Hectares that the defendants acquired fraudulently, a declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants have no interest in the suit property, a declaration that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit land, an order compelling the registrar of titles to enter the

plaintiffs' names onto the certificate of title of the suit land, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from disposing off the suit land, general damages, costs of the suit and other reliefs that the Court may deem fit.

## *Background;*

- 2. The plaintiffs are granddaughters to the late Zakariya Musoke who owned a Kibanja at Kigoowa Ntinda Kyadondo Kampala District. Before his demise, the late Zakariya appointed Leo Luboyera as a customary heir and gave him a share of his Kibanja as aheir at Kulambiro which he sold off and relocated to Zirobwe Luwero District where his family still resides. - 3. In 1970, Mr. Zakariya Musoke died intestate leaving behind a widow Nakitende Maria together with her two daughters Coneria Nakyattu and Maria Nannozi and the widow passed on in 2006. Upon the demise of the widow, the Kibanja was occupied and utilized by Ntambi John a grandson to Zakariya and a son to Coneria Nakyato. - 4. In 2006, the land lord sought to buy the family Kibanja interest in the land at Kigoowa and an understanding was reached between the registered owner, Mr. George William Kijjambu and purported

representatives from the family of the late Zakariya Musoke including Kanani Luboyera, Ronald Luboyera, Basasa Henry and Ntambi John. The understanding was to purchase an alternative piece of land for the beneficiaries/ family of the late Zakariya Musoke and the land was identified at Kakiri in Wakiso District which was comprised in Busiro Block 141 plot 27 at Buyongo.

- 5. To the plaintiffs' surprise, as direct beneficiaries of the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke, all these dealings were done without consulting them and even their parents' remains were relocated without involving them. - 6. The plaintiffs further discovered that their names did not appear on the title yet they are direct beneficiaries to the estate of Zakariya Musoke and they discovered that two of the registered proprietors have no interest in the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke and the two strangers are Ronald Luboyera, the 1st defendant and Kanani Luboyera the 2nd defendant. - 7. That a mediation meeting was held, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants agreed that it was an error not to include the plaintiffs on the title and agreed that they should be registered on the title as joint owners. The 2nd defendant admitted that he is not a beneficiary to

the estate of the late Zakaliya Musoke and agreed to surrender his interest in the property back to the rightful beneficiaries while the 1st defendant a son of the heir to the late Zakariya Musoke refused to be a part of the said undertaking even when he attended the meeting.

- 8. The plaintiffs admit that the 3rd and 4th defendants are direct beneficiaries who have interest in the property but connived with the 1st and 2nd defendants to deny all female beneficiaries their share in the property and deliberately omitting to register them as co- owners. - 9. The plaintiffs pleaded the following particulars of fraud against the defendants;

#### **Particulars of fraud**

- i. The 1st and 2nd Defendants actions of fraudulently and illegally registering their names onto the certificate of title to the suit land yet they clearly knew that they had no interest in the land. - ii. The 3rd and 4th defendants allowing/conniving with the 1st and 2nd defendant to be registered onto the title well knowing

they had no interest in the land and were not beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke.

- iii. The 2nd defendant's actions of utilizing the land to the exclusion of the rightful beneficiaries by planting trees on the whole land for over ten years, growing other crops thus financially benefiting himself alone to the detriment of the rightful beneficiaries. - iv. The defendants' actions of trying to prevent the plaintiffs from using the suit land and stating that women own no land. - v. The 1st defendant fraudulently attempting to sell the land.

### *1st and 2nd Defendants' case;*

- 10. That the 1st and 2nd defendants represented the deceased's family with full authority of the plaintiffs and all the other beneficiaries of the estate and their dealings in the suit property were executed with full knowledge, authority and blessings of the deceased's widow and all the beneficiaries of the estate. - 11. That the 1st and 2nd defendants contend that the plaintiffs have always been in the know of all the facts related to the suit property and they were registered onto the said title to hold in

trust for all the beneficiaries of the deceased's estate who include the plaintiffs.

- 12. The 2nd defendant made an admission to surrender his interest back to the rightful beneficiaries and the 1st and 2nd defendants add that they have the interest of all beneficiaries been willing and ready to settle the matter amicably but are frustrated by the plaintiffs who are interested in pursuing their own selfish interest over the other beneficiaries. - 13. The particulars of fraud are denied and the 1st and 2nd Defendants contend that they have always acted in good faith and in the best interest of the plaintiffs, the deceased's family and all the beneficiaries of the estate, that they protected the deceased's interest in the Kibanja and negotiated with the landlord in order to acquire the suit property for the estate. - 14. That the suit property was registered in the names of the defendants with consent of all parties to this suit and all the other beneficiaries of the deceased's estate and the 2nd defendant was registered on the suit land to protect the interest of the beneficiaries while the 1st defendant was registered in his capacity as the cultural heir to the deceased and as a clan head to protect the burial grounds

of the deceased's family which forms part of the suit land and to which family neither the plaintiffs nor the 3rd and 4th defendants belong and are trying to extinguish.

15. That the 1st and 2nd defendants are ready to surrender their interests in the suit land to all the rightful beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased for as long as all interests are taken care of however the plaintiffs together with the 3rd and 4th defendants are conniving to frustrate the process for their own selfish benefit.

### *3rd and 4th defendants' case;*

- 16. The 3rd and 4th defendants deny conniving with the 1st and 2nd defendants to deprive the plaintiffs of their interest in the suit property. That the 3rd and 4th defendants are beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke as their mothers were both children to the deceased. - 17. The 3rd defendant used to reside/ care take the home of the late Zakariya Musoke and he was approached by the landlord Mr. George William Kijjambu who sought to buy out the Kibanja interest the late Zakariya Musoke held in the land. - 18. That the 3rd defendant then approached the Chairman LC1 by the name Luboyera Canan and the secretary for defence Mr. Bisaso Type text here

Henry to help him with the negotiations and the chairman in turn invited Mr. Ronald Luboyera whom he introduced to us as a son to our grandfather's heir.

- 19. A meeting was held between the landlord Mr. Kijjambu George William and the family of the late Zakariya Musoke represented by the 3rd defendant, Mr. Ntambi John, Canan Luboyera, Bisasa Henry and Ronald Luboyera and it was agreed that the landlord would get the family of the late Zakariya Musoke an alternative piece of land measuring 2 acres and it was also agreed that the land would be registered in the names of the family members that would have been agreed upon. - 20. The 3rd and 4th defendant were approached by the 1st defendant who asked them to sign papers they did not know but they were told by the 1st defendant that he was helping them process the title and later the 3rd defendant was arrested and spent two years in Luzira but the title was not yet out. - 21. That when the 3rd defendant came out from Luzira he was informed by the 1st and 2nd defendants that the title was out and the 3rd defendant had divided the land among the registered proprietors. The third defendant informed the plaintiffs of the developments

which they protested thus they had a meeting with legal aid project of Uganda Law Society and it was agreed that all the beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke be entered onto the title and the 1st and 2nd defendants who are not beneficiaries are removed from the title, the 2nd defendant removes his trees from the disputed land since he has no interest in the land and the 4th defendant does not have any idea of how the 1st and 2nd defendants were registered onto the title as they have no interest in the same.

- 22. On the 7th day of June, 2018, the plaintiffs executed a consent with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants with orders that; - i. The 2nd Defendant relinquishes his interest in the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 measuring approximately 0.18120 hectares and will transfer his interest to the plaintiffs. - ii. The 2nd defendant recognizes the plaintiffs, 3rd and 4th defendants as beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakaliya Musoke. - iii. The 2nd defendant who is confirmed to be in possession of the original certificate of title to the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 shall on execution of this consent hand it

over to the rightful beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakaliya Musoke and the same shall be put in custody of the 1st plaintiff Nawati Prexeda.

- iv. The plaintiffs withdraw the entire claim against the 2nd defendant upon signing transfer forms in respect of the suit land in their favor. - v. The plaintiffs withdraw their entire claim against the 3rd and 4th defendants. - vi. Each party bears their own costs. - 23. By the consent order, the plaintiffs accordingly withdrew their claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and the matter proceeded against the 1st defendant.

#### *Plaintiff's evidence.*

- 24. The plaintiffs led evidence through witness statements of Nawati Prexeda, Nnabadda Teopista, Namazzi Resty and Henry Bisaso. Nawati Prexeda, Nnabadda Teopista, Namazzi Resty, the plaintiffs filed witness statements reechoing the same issues which I will proceed to summarize as below; - i. The plaintiffs are granddaughters of the late Zakaliya Musoke who died in 1970. The late Zakariya Musoke had

three children, Maria Nanozi, Coneria Nakyato and Wagaba Emmanuel who died leaving no issues behind. The deceased was survived by Maria Nanozi and Coneria Nakyato.

- ii. The late Zakariya Musoke owned a Kibanja at Kigoowa Ntinda, Kyadondo in Kampala District. He appointed Leo Luboyera as a customary heir and gave him his share of the kibanja at Kulambiro who sold it off and bought land at Zirobwe Luwero District where his family resides. - iii. The widow to the late Zakariya Musoke, Maria Nakitende together with her two daughters Maria Nanozi and Coneria Nakyatu occupied and utilized the kibanja until around 2006 when the widow passed away and the Kibanja was occupied by Ntambi John a son to Coneria Nakyatu. - iv. In 2006, the landlord sought to buy the family Kibanja interest in the land at Kigoowa and an understanding was reached between the registered owner Mr. George William Kijjambu and purported representatives from Zakaria Musoke's house who included Canan Luboyera, Ronald

Luboyera (a son to the customary heir), Basasa Henry and Ntambi John, to purchase an alternative piece of land for the beneficiaries/family of the late Zakaria Musoke and the said land was identified at Kakiri in Wakiso District comprised in Busiro Block 141 plot 27.

- v. To my surprise, my sisters and I who are direct beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakaria Musoke were not consulted when all these dealings were done and our parents' remains were relocated without involving us. - vi. I further discovered that two people who have no interest in the late Zakariya's estate were registered on the title making them co-owners and the two strangers are Ronald Luboyera and Kanani Luboyera. - vii. I approached the legal aid project of the Uganda Law Society for legal assistance and a mediation was held and the 2nd defendant agreed that he had no interest in the property and was okay having his name removed from the title, Ntambi John and Kavuma Fred agreed that the plaintiffs are also beneficiaries and should be registered on the title as joint owners.

viii. Luboyera Kanan admitted that he is not a beneficiary to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke and agreed to surrender his interest in the property back to rightful beneficiaries, Ronald Luboyera refused to be a party to the said understanding, claiming that he is the rightful customary heir by virtue of his father having been the customary heir.

### *1st Defendant's evidence.*

- 25. That the late Zakaliya Musoke was the owner of Kibanja found in Kigoowa Kulambiro, Kampala District on the land belonging to George William Kijjambu where he lived and on which he was originally buried together with all his above-mentioned children and two of his grandchildren on the burial grounds he has started on it. - 26. When the late Zakaliya Musoke died, my father the late Leo Luboyera his younger brother was installed as his heir because he had no living son at the time of his death as his son Wagaba Emmanuel had predeceased him and I was upon the death of my father installed as his heir and that of Zakaliya Musoke.

- 27. By the year 2000, most of all the immediate family members of the late Zakaliya Musoke were dead leaving only the late Maria Nakitende his wife who was of advanced age when the land owner a one George William Kijjambu expressed that he wanted to relocate Zakaliya's kibanja and start utilizing his land. - 28. I was later in my capacity as the heir to the late Zakaliya Musoke then, involved in the negotiations with the landlord George William Kijjambu for compensation of the kibanja interest of the late Zakaliya Musoke who offered to buy for the family 2 acres of land in exchange within a radius of 15km from Kampala and we made an agreement. - 29. When we were negotiating the team of the family of the late Zakaliya Musoke included myself, Luboyera Canan (my uncle), Bisaso Henry a nephew to Nakitende Maria (Zakaliya's wife), Ntambi John (3rd defendant) and a brother to the plaintiffs representing the interests of the children of Zakaliya's daughter Nakyato Cornelia and Kavuma Fred who represented the interest of the children of his 2nd daughter Nanozi Maria. - 30. I was involved in my capacity as an heir to secure the burial grounds of the late Zakaliya Musoke as accordingly to the

Buganda custom to which I and the late Zakaliya Musoke belong to the burial ground are taken care of by a person from the same clan.

- 31. That it was unanimously agreed that the land be transferred and registered into my names, Ntambi John, Kavuma Fred and Luboyera Canan who represented all interest and title comprised in Block 141 plot 27 was created and we did not include the plaintiffs as they were represented by their brother Ntambi John. - 32. The plaintiffs were consulted and were kept in the know in all the process of negotiations with the landlord and they even participated in the ceremonies of exhuming and relocating the remains from kulambiro to the suit land, so it is a total lie that the plaintiffs were intentionally left out. - 33. That I and Luboyera Canan were over the years in charge of looking after the land on which we planted and cultivated different crops and I also buried my son on it. In 2017 I and Luboyera Canan were summoned by the legal aid project where the plaintiffs alleged that we had stolen their land and yet we have never done anything to change the proprietorship from the time it got registered. I was registered on the suit land in my capacity as the

cultural heir to the deceased to protect the interest of the late Zakaliya Musoke.

## *Representation;*

34. At the hearing the plaintiffs were represented by Counsel Nansukusa Mariam of the Legal Aid Project of the Uganda Law Society whereas the 1st defendant was represented by Counsel khalayi Lillian of M/S Sabiiti & Co. Advocates. Both counsel filed written submissions which this court has considered in the determination of this suit.

# *Issues for determination*

- 35. The parties filed a scheduling memorandum in which they agreed on the following issues; - i. Whether the defendant fraudulently registered himself on the certificate for land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27? - ii. Whether the defendant is entitled to registration on the suit land? - iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to co-ownership of the suit land? - iv. What remedies are available to the parties?

## *Analysis and determination of the issues;*

### *Issue One & Two.*

- 36. Counsel for the plaintiff argued the above grounds together and relied on the authority of Fredrick Zaabwe Vs Orient Bank & others SCCA No. 4 of 2006 to define fraud to mean an intentional perversion of the truth by a person for purposes of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or her to surrender a legal right. He stated that it is evident that the plaintiffs are the grandchildren of the late Zakaria Musoke who died in 1970 leaving behind a Kibanja located at Kigoowa Ntinda in Kampala District and in 2006 the landlord Mr. Kijjambu sought to buy the Kibanja interest and an understanding was reached with the representatives from the side of Zakariah Musoke and alternative land was purchased comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 measuring approximately 2 acres where the grave yards were transferred. - 37. PW1 led evidence that the suit land was registered in the names of the defendants without involving the plaintiffs who are the

beneficiaries of the estate of the late Zakaria Musoke. It's the plaintiff's evidence that the defendant is not an heir of the late Zakariah Musoke and was never appointed by the family.

- 38. As per exhibit 1 the land title, the defendant is registered on the title as the co-owner of the suit land not as the custodian yet he is not a beneficiary of the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke and went ahead to utilize the same for his own benefit. - 39. The defendant in response, the defendant stated that he got registered on the suit land in his capacity as the cultural heir to the deceased to protect the interest of his burial grounds which forms part of the suit land. He adduced evidence that he in his culture has the responsibility of taking care of the burial grounds which evidence was corroborated by that of DW2 a senior citizen who adduced evidence that the defendant is best suited in Buganda cultural custom to which the deceased belongs to care take the burial grounds. - 40. That the plaintiffs allege that the defendant was fraudulent when he went ahead to utilize the land for his own benefit with the intent of depriving the plaintiffs of their share as the direct beneficiaries of the estate. It is not true as the defendant adduced

evidence that the plaintiffs have also freely utilized the land. In fact, their brother Ntambi John who represented their interests was found in possession utilizing the land during locus visit and they seemed not to have a problem with it. The plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence to show that the defendant has ever prevented them from using the land.

#### *Analysis by Court.*

- 41. Fraud has been defined in the case of **Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & others SCCA No.4 of 2006** to mean "An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon to his legal injury." - 42. To determine these issues, it is important to establish the intention of the parties when they entered into negotiations with the registered proprietor or landlord on the Kibanja at Kigoowa which led to the purchase of the now suit land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 at Kakiri.

- 43. The plaintiffs' claim is squarely premised on the doctrine of tracing, whereby the plaintiffs seek to recover an asset which fell into the defendant's hands. The said asset was passed on by a third party in exchange for another asset disposed of by the defendants. - 44. The defendants disposed of the Kibanja interest owned by the estate of the late Zakaliya Musoke in exchange for the suit land now comprised in Busiro Block 141 plot 27 at Kakiri and registered themselves thereon despite the 1st and 2nd defendant having no valid interest in the same as none of them was or is a beneficiary to the estate of the late Zakaliya Musoke. - 45. Simply put, the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the estate of the late Musoke Zakariya are asserting their rights on land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 at Kakiri the same way they would have asserted rights on the Kibanja situate at Kigoowa Ntinda in Kampala District from the 1st and 2nd defendants who are believed not to have any interest in the same. - 46. The circumstances surrounding the negotiations and the understandings reached between the defendants and the landlord of Kigoowa Mr. Kijjambu. The defendants held out as

representatives of the late Zakariya Musoke, whereas it is not in dispute that the 3rd and 4th defendant are siblings to the plaintiffs, the 1st and 2nd defendants are not therefore did not hold any interest in the land.

- 47. Whereas the 2nd defendant relinquished his interest upon the execution of the consent judgment while the 1st defendant didn't. The 1st defendant stated in his written statement of defence that he entered the said negotiations in his capacity as the heir to the late Luboyera who was the heir to the late Zakariya Musoke as he assumed both titles. - 48. It is worth noting that the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke has never gone under administration as the administrators would have been the right people to enter into the said negotiations with the landlord at Kigoowa, Mr. Kijjambu, be that as it may, the beneficiaries dealt with the estate. - 49. The late Zakariya Musoke appointed Luboyera Leo as his heir and he accordingly received a share out of his estate which he later on disposed of and relocated his family to Zirobwe. Upon his demise, the 1st defendant was appointed as heir to his late father

upon which he claims to have become heir to the late Zakaliya Musoke by that virtue.

- 50. That notwithstanding, the 1st defendant's late father had no interest in the estate of the late Zakariya thus the 1st defendant could not have obtained one just by virtue of being heir to the late Luboyera and that of the late Zakariya Musoke as he purports. Therefore, he had no rights to participate in any dealings with regards to the estate of the late Musoke Zakariya. - 51. The acts of having his names and those of the 2nd Defendant registered onto the suit land when he clearly had no interest in the same are actions which fit well in the ambits of the definition of fraud. There were various legally tenable options of preserving the estate property, if that was truly his intention'' rather than having his name and that of the 2nd defendant registered onto the certificate of title despite the existence of the true and direct beneficiaries to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke. - 52. This Court also takes note of the prayers made by the 1st defendant in his witness statement to wit; an order for the plaintiffs to demarcate off a portion of the suit land for burial grounds and the suit be dismissed with costs to him. The land in

question belongs to the estate of the late Zakariya Musoke for which its rightful beneficiaries are all available and know best how to deal with the same and the said burial grounds also consist of the graveyards of the plaintiffs' parents too.

53. Therefore, this court is attempted to believe that the 1st defendant's actions of having his name registered onto the certificate of title whilst it was well within his knowledge that he held no valid interest therein was fraudulent.

## *Issue three and four;*

- 54. The plaintiffs prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants, general damages and costs of the suit. - *55.* It is settled law that a permanent injunction is a remedy for preventing wrongs and preserving rights so that by single exercise of equitable power an injury is both restrained and repaired, for purposes of dispensing complete justice between the parties*. (See;*

# *Akena Christopher & Ors v Opwonya Noah Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2016).*

56. Whereas the 1st and 2nd defendant were registered onto the certificate of title despite holding no valid interest in the same, their intention was to preserve the said land for the estate of the

late Zakariya Musoke. The 1st defendant went ahead to bury his son on the suit land thereby attaching a sentimental value to it. This Court therefore shall only issue a permanent injunction restricting dealings detrimental to the plaintiffs' interest and other beneficiaries and or any transactions in the suit land.

*57.* With regards to general damages as prayed for by the plaintiffs, the law on general damages is that the damages are awarded at the discretion of the Court and the purpose is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach or wrong not occurred. *(See; Hadley v Baxendale (1894)*

### *9 Exch 341)*

- 58. The decision in **Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007** is well settled law on award of damages by a trial court. It is trite law that damages are the direct probable consequences of the act complained of. - 59. The plaintiffs have not led any iota of evidence to show that they have suffered any inconvenience as their suit purely seeks to assert proprietary rights in the suit property as the beneficiaries to the estate of the late Musoke Zakariya. The suit land has not

been sold as the defendants only occupied and used the same for burial grounds and planted trees thereon which I believe was a means of preservation of the same. Therefore, I don't find any justifiable reason for awarding general damages.

- 60. On the issue of Cost; Costs follow the event and the successful party is entitled to cost as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. **Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act states;** *"Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter shall follow the event unless the Court or the judge for good reason otherwise orders''* - 61. The plaintiffs being the successful party are entitled to costs of this suit. - 62. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pronounce judgement and decree for the plaintiff against the defendants with declarations and orders that; - i) A declaration that the 1st defendant has no interest in the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 measuring approximately 0.8120 hectares. - ii) A declaration that the 1st defendant's registration onto the suit land was tainted with fraud.

25 $$\frac{1}{2}$$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

- iii) An order for cancellation of the 1st and 2nd defendants' names on the certificate of title for the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 141 Plot 27 measuring approximately 0.8120 hectares. - iv) An order that the plaintiffs' names be entered onto the certificate of title for land comprised in Busiro Block 141 plot 27 measuring approximately 0.8120 hectares as joint owners together with the 3rd and 4th defendants. - v) A permanent injunction doth issue restricting dealings detrimental to the plaintiffs' interest and other beneficiaries and or any transactions in the suit land. - vi) Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs and to be paid by the 1st defendant.

**I SO ORDER**.

**…………………………..**

**NALUZZE AISHA BATALA**

**Ag. JUDGE**

**23/12/2024**

## **Delivered electronically via ECCMIS on the 23rd day of**

**December 2024.**