Wakilii

Abdu Kiwunda Mukasa and Another v Hajji Amis Kirumba Mukasa and Another (Civil Suit No. 190 of 2018; Civil Suit No. 209 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 81 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance suit for revocation of probate and accounting of estate administration, with counterclaim for declaration of intermeddling
Decision
Probate revoked. Letters of administration granted to five beneficiaries. Defendants ordered to refund UGX 70,000,000 and distribute undistributed estate property.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court revoked the probate granted to the defendants for failure to file an inventory within the prescribed six-month period under the Succession Act. The court found the defendants failed to distribute two bibanja in Bugulo Kyagwe to beneficiaries as required by the will. The court also found plaintiffs intermeddled in the estate by collecting rental income without proper authorization from the administrators. Letters of administration were granted to five beneficiaries including one of the original defendants. The defendants were ordered to refund UGX 70,000,000 from the sale of one beneficiary's share.

Outcome

Probate revoked. Letters of administration granted to five beneficiaries. Defendants ordered to refund UGX 70,000,000 and distribute undistributed estate property.

Facts

The parties are biological children and administrators of the estate of the late Hajji Nasibu Mukasa who died testate. The defendants obtained letters of probate on 10th May 2004. The plaintiffs sued claiming the defendants failed to distribute estate property (two bibanja at Bugulo) as required by the will, failed to file an inventory within the statutory six-month period, filed a false inventory out of time, sold one beneficiary's share without remitting proceeds, and improperly allocated estate property to the second defendant. The defendants counterclaimed that the plaintiffs intermeddled in the estate by collecting rental income from commercial property without authorization. Evidence showed the defendants obtained probate in 2004 but did not file an inventory until 2018, fourteen years later. The plaintiffs through Sarah Nattembo collected rent from the main commercial property from 2018 onwards.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the defendants
  2. Whether the defendants have distributed the estate of the late Hajji Nasibu Mukasa in accordance with his last will
  3. Whether there is just cause for revocation of probate granted to the defendants in Administration Cause No. 0252 of 2004
  4. Whether the plaintiffs have intermeddled in the estate of the late Hajji Nasibu Mukasa
  5. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Probate granted to the defendants on 10th May 2004 is revoked for failure to file an inventory within the prescribed time.
  • Probate/Letters of Administration (With Will Annexed) shall be granted to Muhammed Kibuuka Mukasa, Sarah Nattembo, Hajji Amisi Kirumba Mukasa, Bayiga Halima Mukasa and Hawa Nakagwa.
  • The defendants shall refund Uganda Shillings Seventy Million only (UGX 70,000,000) to Hasifa Nakirya Mukasa, being proceeds from the sale of her beneficial share, immediately and in any case not later than the 30th day of April 2025.
  • The 2nd defendant is discharged from the administration of the estate.
  • The 2nd defendant shall remain in occupation of the piece of land given to him by the deceased uninterrupted.
  • The new administrators shall adhere to the will of the deceased and execute it accordingly.
  • The new administrators shall ensure that the two bibanjas in Bugulo are distributed to the beneficiaries in accordance with the will.
  • No orders have been made to either of the parties to account for what they have been receiving because all beneficiaries have been receiving money from the rental income.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Revocation of Probate — Failure to File Inventory
Letters of administration may be revoked for just cause including failure to exhibit an inventory within the statutory six-month period under section 273(1) of the Succession Act, and such failure is a ground for revocation even where the executor later files an inventory out of time without leave of court.
Cause of Action — Failure to Execute Will
A beneficiary establishes a cause of action against administrators where the administrators obtain probate but fail to distribute estate property to the rightful beneficiaries as directed by the will, and this failure continues for a substantial period without reasonable explanation or effort to comply.
Intermeddling — Unauthorized Collection of Estate Income
A person intermeddles in a deceased's estate contrary to section 265(2) of the Succession Act where that person, not being the administrator or authorized agent, takes possession of estate property or does any act belonging to the office of administrator, including collecting rental income from estate property and distributing it to beneficiaries without proper authorization from the administrators.
Construction of Wills — Prohibition Against Sale
Where a testator's will expressly prohibits the sale of estate property and directs that beneficiaries shall receive only rental income from that property, the court will not order distribution or sale of such property as this would contradict the clear wishes of the testator as expressed in the will.
Duty of Administrators — Distribution According to Will
It is the sole responsibility of administrators to ensure that a will is executed according to the wishes of the deceased, and administrators cannot excuse their failure to distribute property by claiming that third parties designated in the will to facilitate distribution have not acted, where the administrators have made no effort to engage those parties or pursue alternative means of distribution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Phillip Dumba and Another v David Arthur Bagambe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2022)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Paulo Kauma v Moses Sekajja (1995) KALR 18
  • Michael Oscar Kayemba v James Mulwana and 3 Others (1999) KALR 738

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdu Kiwunda Mukasa and Another v Hajji Amis Kirumba Mukasa and Another (Civil Suit No. 190 of 2018; Civil Suit No. 209 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 81 (17 March 2025)
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.