Ssemalulu and Others v Rebecca (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2016] UGCA 107 · 2016 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court (Family Division) judgment revoking letters of administration

Decision

Appeal dismissed; trial court's revocation of the appellants' grant and grant of letters of administration to the respondent upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, re-evaluating the evidence as a first appellate court, upheld the trial Judge's finding that the respondent was a biological daughter of the deceased Tito Kasirye, based on the credible testimony of close family elders and a baptism certificate, and rejected the appellants' contradictory evidence. It held the appellants had concealed the respondent's status from the Administrator General and the High Court when obtaining their grant, which was a fraudulent act amounting to just cause for revocation under section 234(2) of the Succession Act. The grant of letters of administration to the respondent, as the only surviving child and most suitable person, was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The late Tito Kasirye died on 25 October 1990. The appellants, grandchildren of the deceased through his son Daniel Kikonyogo Ssalongo, were granted letters of administration of his estate in High Court Administration Cause No. 742 of 2000. The respondent claimed to be the only surviving biological daughter of Tito Kasirye and sued to revoke the appellants' grant and obtain her own. The appellants disputed her paternity, asserting her father was one Kaddu Ssalongo. The respondent relied on a baptism certificate naming Kasirye as her father, and on testimony of his sister and nephew, who confirmed she was his daughter, grew up in his home, and was named a beneficiary in his will. The alleged father, Kaddu Ssalongo, gave contradictory evidence and repeatedly avoided cross-examination. The appellants had obtained their grant without disclosing the respondent's asserted status to the Administrator General or the court, despite being aware of it.

Issues

Whether the respondent was proved to be a biological child of the late Tito Kasirye.
Whether the trial Judge erred in declining to order a DNA test and to summon the alleged biological father.
Whether the trial Judge was right to revoke the letters of administration granted to the appellants and grant them to the respondent.

Orders

Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal disallowed.
Third ground of the appeal found to have no merit.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellants to pay costs of the appeal and those in the court below to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence

A first appellate court must re-appraise the evidence and draw its own inferences of fact, but should depart from the trial court's findings only where there are sound reasons to do so, making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

Letters of Administration — Revocation — Fraud or Concealment as Just Cause

An applicant who obtains letters of administration by concealing material facts, such as the existence of a surviving child and beneficiary, from the Administrator General and the court acts fraudulently, providing just cause for revocation of the grant under section 234(2) of the Succession Act.

Grant of Administration — Court's Overriding Discretion — Disclosure of Material Factors

The power to grant administration is subject to the court's overriding discretion to grant it to such persons as it finds fit; applicants must disclose all material factors, and an applicant whose conduct toward the estate has been wrongful or fraudulent ought not to benefit from such conduct.

Proof of Paternity — Baptism Certificate and Testimony of Family Elders — DNA Testing Not Mandatory

Paternity may be established by credible testimony of close relatives together with a baptism certificate, and a trial court is not obliged to order a DNA test or summon an alleged father where the available evidence sufficiently proves the relationship.

Legislation cited (5)

Succession Act Cap.162 s.61
Succession Act Cap.162 s.62
Succession Act Cap.162 s.234(2)(b)
Succession Act Cap.162 s.234(2)(c)
Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (3)

Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Another v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
Kiiza Samuel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2008)
Res [1967] 2 ALL ER 150

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.