Wakilii

Prince David Wasajja & 2 Others ( Administrators of the Estate of the Sir Edward Mutesa) v Kasasa & Another (Civil Appeal 1 of 2024)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 14 · 2025 Appeal Referred to Mediation ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal; ruling on conflicting executor instructions regarding referral of the appeal to mediation.
Decision
Appeal referred to appellate mediation.

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

On conflicting instructions between the deceased first respondent's executors and executrixes, the Supreme Court held that the testator's intention, given effect under sections 71 and 268(1) of the Succession Act, governs. Clause 4.4 of the will required decisions to be made by the heiress together with two other executors or executrixes; their decision to explore appellate mediation therefore binds the co-executors. The rule in Silver Byaruhanga, that joint executors must act jointly at all times, was confined to land conveyancing under section 118(3) of the Registration of Titles Act and did not require unanimity here. The Court referred the appeal to mediation.

Facts

The appellants, administrators of the estate of Sir Edward Mutesa, appealed a Court of Appeal decision. The first respondent, Dr. Muhammed Buwule Kasasa, died and was substituted by his executors and executrixes. At the hearing, two sets of advocates appeared for the first respondent with conflicting instructions: the executrixes, advised by counsel, wished to explore appellate mediation, while the executors instructed counsel to proceed with the appeal without mediation. The deceased's will, by clause 4.4, required any decision concerning the estate to be made by his heiress together with two other executors or executrixes. By clause 3, the testator appointed Sophia Nambalirwa as his heiress.

Issues

  1. Whether, where co-executors hold conflicting instructions, the testator's directions in the will on how estate decisions are to be made govern the conduct of the appeal.
  2. Whether the rule that joint executors who have obtained probate must act jointly at all times applies to the decision whether to pursue appellate mediation.

Orders

  • The Appeal is referred to mediation.

Key headnotes

Succession — Executors and Executrixes — Effect of an express direction in the will on estate decision-making
Where a will expressly directs the manner in which decisions concerning the estate are to be taken, that direction prevails, and a decision made by the heiress together with the required number of other executors or executrixes binds the co-executors.
Succession — Joint exercise of executors' powers — Scope of the requirement to act jointly
The requirement that executors who have jointly obtained probate must act jointly at all times is confined to land conveyancing under section 118(3) of the Registration of Titles Act and does not compel unanimity in the general conduct of litigation, including the decision to pursue mediation.
Succession Act s.268(1) — Powers of several executors absent a contrary direction
Under section 268(1) of the Succession Act, the powers of several executors may, in the absence of any direction to the contrary, be exercised by any one who has proved the will; but an express contrary direction in the will displaces this default rule.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Succession Act Cap. 268 s.58
  • Succession Act Cap. 268 s.71
  • Succession Act Cap. 268 s.268(1)
  • Succession Act (former) s.272
  • Registration of Titles Act (former) s.134(3)
  • Registration of Titles Act Cap. 240 s.118(3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Silver Byaruhanga v Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Another, Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2044
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.