Wakilii

Ssinabulya & 2 Others v Lubega & Another (Civil Appeal 18 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 80 · 2024 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment, reheard by a fresh panel after the Supreme Court set aside an earlier Court of Appeal decision for an incomplete coram
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondents declared trespassers, eviction and accounting ordered; cross-appeal dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 allowed the appeal, holding that only relatives specified in section 27 of the Succession Act may share in an intestate estate; a sister and grand-nephews are not lineal descendants under section 20, and the respondents pleaded neither dependent-relative nor customary-heir status, so they lacked locus standi to counterclaim. A new claim of collateral consanguinity raised on appeal without leave offended Rule 102 and was disregarded. The registered proprietor's title was indefeasible absent strictly proven fraud attributable to the transferee, and the respondents who entered the land and collected rent were trespassers. The cross-appeal asserting that Nabulya was not the widow was dismissed.

Facts

The suit land, mailo land at Buye, Ntinda, was registered in the name of the late Yozefu Bukenya, who died intestate in 2007 without children. His widow, Petolalina Nabulya, was appointed administrator and registered herself as proprietor, then as beneficiary. She died testate in 2008, and the appellants, her executors, obtained probate and were registered as proprietors. The respondents — a sister and grand-nephews of the deceased Bukenya — entered the land and collected rent, claiming to be relatives entitled to a share of Bukenya's estate. The appellants sued for eviction, an injunction and damages for trespass; the respondents counterclaimed for cancellation of the appellants' registration on grounds of fraud, contending Nabulya was not Bukenya's wife and had wrongly taken the whole estate. The High Court held the respondents were relatives and not trespassers and found the appellants' registration fraudulent.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were beneficiaries of the estate of the late Yozefu Bukenya entitled to bring a counterclaim.
  2. Whether the respondents could raise, for the first time on appeal and without leave, a claim of collateral consanguinity not pleaded or contained in the memorandum of appeal.
  3. Whether the appellants' registration as proprietors of the suit land was vitiated by fraud.
  4. Whether the respondents were trespassers on the suit land registered in the proprietor's name.
  5. Whether the late Petolalina Nabulya was the widow of the late Yozefu Bukenya (cross-appeal).

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and substituted with this judgment.
  • The late Petolalina Nabulya was the sole surviving beneficiary of the estate of the late Yozefu Bukenya.
  • The appellants have the power and right to deal with all property comprised in the estate of the late Petolalina Nabulya, including all properties formerly belonging to the estate of the late Yozefu Bukenya.
  • The respondents are not beneficiaries of the estate of the late Bukenya under the Succession Act and had no claim on his estate.
  • The respondents have at all material times been trespassers on the suit land.
  • An order of eviction is issued against the respondents in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit property.
  • The respondents are to file a return at the High Court Family Division accounting for all monies/property received and held while in possession of the suit property and pay any monies due to the estate within 90 days from the date of this judgment.
  • The Commissioner for Land Registration is ordered to cancel and reverse all entries made on the properties of the late Yozefu Bukenya and Petolalina Nabulya in compliance with the High Court judgment from which this appeal arises.
  • The respondents shall jointly or severally pay the costs of this appeal and those at the High Court.

Key headnotes

Intestate Succession — Persons Entitled to Share — Section 27 Succession Act
On the death of a person intestate, only those relatives specified in section 27 of the Succession Act are entitled to a share of the estate; the assumption that any relative of a childless intestate is entitled has no basis at law.
Lineal Consanguinity — Section 20 Succession Act — Excluded Relatives
Under section 20 of the Succession Act a sister is not a lineal descendant of her brother, and the son of a deceased nephew is not a lineal descendant, because neither descends in a direct line from the deceased.
Pleadings and Appeals — New Ground Raised on Appeal Without Leave — Rule 102 Court of Appeal Rules
A party may not, without leave of the court, argue on appeal a claim that was neither pleaded in the written statement of defence nor specified in the memorandum of appeal; obtaining leave is an essential step, not a mere procedural formality.
Registration of Titles — Indefeasibility of Title — Sections 59 and 176 RTA
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and a registered proprietor's title is indefeasible and protected against ejectment except for fraud.
Fraud Under the RTA — Attribution to Transferee — Standard of Proof
Fraud under the Registration of Titles Act must be attributed to the transferee, directly or by necessary implication, and must be proved strictly to a standard heavier than the ordinary civil balance of probabilities.
Trespass to Land — Capacity to Sue — Registered Proprietor in Possession
Trespass to land is an unauthorised entry interfering with another's lawful possession, and only a person in actual or constructive possession may sue; a registered proprietor's indefeasible title is sufficient to support an action in trespass.
Administration of Estates — Widow as Administrator — Customary Claims Excluded by Statute
A widow is a proper person to administer her deceased husband's estate, and 'blood relatives' have no claim to a deceased's estate under Kiganda customary law where there is written law on succession that applies regardless of custom.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Succession Act Cap 162 s.20
  • Succession Act Cap 162 s.21
  • Succession Act Cap 162 s.25
  • Succession Act Cap 162 s.27
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.59
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.134
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.176
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.15
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.102(a)

Cases cited (13)

  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Sukuto Ali v Augustine Kapkwanyango and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2012)
  • Dr. Sheikh Ahamed Mohamed Kisuule v Green Land Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • John Katarikawe v William Katwiremu [1977] HCB 187
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Ruwala v R [1957] EA 570
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Okethi Okale v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Mbazira Siragi and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • Re Kibiego [1972] EA 179
  • Sarah Sebowa & 5 Others v Peter Sebowa [1991] HCB 95
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.