Kasasa v Bwogi & Another (Civil Application 23 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 72 · 2018 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion in the Supreme Court to strike out a notice of appeal and civil appeal filed by the 2nd respondent

Decision

Application allowed; Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013 struck out for want of locus standi

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 Supreme Court held that a power of attorney granted by a donor during his lifetime lapses on the donor's death and cannot authorise the donee to continue acting. Under sections 180, 191 and 192 of the Succession Act and Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court, only a legal representative holding probate or letters of administration may institute an appeal on behalf of a deceased litigant. As the 2nd respondent held no letters of administration to the deceased 1st respondent's estate, he lacked locus standi to lodge the appeal. The first ground accordingly succeeded, rendering it unnecessary to decide the time-bar issue, and the impugned appeal was struck out.

Facts

The 1st respondent had sued the applicant in the High Court (HCCS No. 280 of 2003) to recover land at Namirembe, Block 10 Plot 147. After an amendment of the plaint was challenged, the Court of Appeal in 2009 set aside the amendment and dismissed the original suit, and the High Court closed the file in August 2013. On 18 May 2007 the 1st respondent had granted the 2nd respondent a power of attorney to represent him in court in matters connected with the suit land. The 1st respondent died on 10 June 2013. In September 2013, relying on that power of attorney and a letter, the 2nd respondent instructed advocates and lodged Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013 in the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal decision. The 2nd respondent held no letters of administration to the deceased's estate. The applicant brought this application to strike out the appeal, challenging the 2nd respondent's authority to file it.

Issues

Whether the 2nd respondent had locus standi to institute an appeal in the Supreme Court on behalf of the deceased 1st respondent without letters of administration.
Whether the appeal was filed within the time prescribed by Rule 79(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Orders

The surrejoinder filed by the 2nd respondent without leave of court is struck out.
The application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013 is allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013 is struck out.
Each party to bear their own costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Powers of Attorney — Effect of Death of the Donor

A power of attorney donated by a donor during his lifetime is not donated in perpetuity and lapses upon the donor's death, conferring no authority on the donee to continue acting thereafter.

Succession & Estates — Legal Representation — Locus Standi to Pursue a Deceased's Cause

No right to any part of the property of a person who has died intestate may be established in court unless letters of administration have been granted; only a legal representative who has obtained probate or letters of administration may institute or continue a suit or appeal on behalf of a deceased person.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Death of a Party — Institution in the Name of a Legal Representative

Under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Supreme Court an appeal shall not be instituted in the name of a person who is dead, but may be instituted only in the name of his or her legal representative.

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Surrejoinder Filed Without Leave of Court

By Order VIII rule 11(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules no further reply or rejoinder may be filed without leave of court, and a surrejoinder filed without such leave is improperly on the record and will be struck out.

Legislation cited (14)

Succession Act s.180
Succession Act s.191
Succession Act s.192
Rules of the Supreme Court r.79(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
Rules of the Supreme Court r.43
Rules of the Supreme Court r.50
Rules of the Supreme Court r.78
Rules of the Supreme Court r.80
Rules of the Supreme Court r.83
Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII r.11(3)

Cases cited (1)

Kabale Housing Estates Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Council (Civil Application No. 15 of 2013)

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.