Post-conflict northern Uganda has witnessed an increase in disputes over land. This has, to a great extent, been as a result of the armed conflict and its aftermath. Beyond that, other chaotic factors embedded in various social, legal, economic, and political aspects of this society have influenced the nature, gravity, and dynamics of these disputes and the way in which Traditional Institutions and the Local Council Courts have attempted to resolve them.

Post-war Mozambique confronted the challenge of reforming land policy and legislation
with an innovative land law that protects customary rights while promoting investment
and development. Most rural households have customarily acquired land rights, now
legally equivalent to an official State land use right. When necessary, they can be proven
by analysing local land management and production systems, resulting in large areas

The colonial and postcolonial legacy of the “Lost Counties” land issue has recently resurfaced as a contentious ethno-political issue in Uganda. The aim of the paper is to critically examine the politics of belonging and land rights in relation to Ugandan land legislation and the “Lost Counties” issue. The empirically basis of this paper is primarily derived from field work in Kibaale District, during the period January to July 2004.

Quando a Lei de Terras 19/97 estabeleceu que o direito de uso e aproveitamento da terra é adquirido por ocupação por pessoas singulares e pelas comunidades locais, segundo as normas e práticas costumeiras que não contrariem a Constituição, criou-se a ruptura com a prática legislativa em Moçambique e em muitos outros países africanos.

The Karamoja region in Northeastern Uganda, covering an area of 27,200 square kilometers, is inhabited by around 1.2 million people who live in seven districts; Moroto, Nakapiripirit, Napak, Amudat, Abim, Kotido and Kaabong. Its residents are mainly Ngakarimojong speaking peoples, but the area is also home to the Ethur, Labwor, Pokot, and indigenous minorities such as the Tepes and the Ik.

The paper asserts that in order to be effective it is important to work with and from existing tenure systems and to build upon them, rather than expect that they can be “demolished and replaced by efficient new systems”.  Experience both here and elsewhere in Africa also tells us that attempts to change tenure tend to result in a “defaulting” back to what is known, often with increased confusion and conflict over procedures and adjudication authorities.

This paper is concerned primarily with the functions of land administration. Its
purpose is to describe the current land administration practices as understood by
traditional structures with a view to unpacking some of the components of the existing
African tenure arrangements in KwaZulu-Natal. This, it is hoped, will help to create a
base to understand how communal land systems operate, regardless of which structure
governs them, in order to support practices that secure tenure effectively.

Approaches to securing tenure have been dominated by debates about whether titling advances secure land tenure and development in developing countries or whether it is either ineffectual or detrimental to socially more relevant systems. While the policies of many developing countries, including South Africa, continue to support titling approaches to securing tenure, there is widespread confirmation in the literature that title can be problematic for poor people living in both urban and rural areas.

This think piece sets out to:

This input by Dr Aninka Claassens Director of the Land and Accoutability Centre at the University of Cape Town was presented as part of a five day short couse on the political economy of land mining and rural democracy. It provides a detailed history of processes and events which continue to shape South Africa's rural hinterland in the contemprary era.

Government has been implementing the Land Resettlement Programme for over twenty four (24) years, focusing mainly on land resettlement for agricultural purposes without a comprehensive policy and legal framework. This has caused a number of challenges including lack of a coordination mechanism at higher level of Government in the implementation of the land resettlement programme, land disputes and low levels of infrastructure development and service provision in the resettlement schemes.

Land in the Zeliangrong community is controlled under the customary land tenure system in which the village owner (Nampou) governed granting equal access to all the families within groups with common lineages. The increase in complexity due to rapid changes in domestic situation through government policies led to the alteration of traditional land tenure systems in Tamenglong District.