Abu & Another v Safina (Civil Appeal 76 of 2020)

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.

Holding

The High Court held that an appeal does not abate upon the death of the respondent where the cause of action survives. The respondent died after the Notice of Appeal was filed but before the Memorandum of Appeal. The Court found that the appeal was not incompetent merely because the Memorandum was filed after the respondent's death. The proper course is for the deceased's beneficiaries to obtain Letters of Administration and have a legal representative substituted as a party to enable determination of the appeal.

Outcome

Appeal to proceed once legal representative for the deceased respondent is appointed and substituted

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in the Chief Magistrate's Court declaring her the rightful owner of one acre of land allegedly given to her as a gift inter vivos by her uncle Amisi Musoke, with orders of eviction, permanent injunction, general damages of UGX 8,000,000 and costs against the appellants (the biological children of the deceased donor). The appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 December 2020. The respondent died on 25 June 2021. The appellants filed their Memorandum of Appeal on 30 August 2021. When the matter came for hearing in December 2023, counsel for the beneficiaries of the respondent's estate raised a preliminary objection that the appeal had abated due to the respondent's death and the appellants' failure to take steps to have a legal representative appointed. The appellants opposed the objection, arguing that the beneficiaries should obtain Letters of Administration.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal abates at the death of the respondent.

Orders

• The appeal has not abated by reason of the death of the respondent.
• The beneficiaries/family of the respondent are directed to commence the process of getting a legal representative to enable determination of this matter.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 24 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 24 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 24 rule 10
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.222
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 79 s.11
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 rule 79
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 rule 85

Cases cited (1)

• Babubhai Dhanji Pathak v Zainab Mrekwe [1964] EA 24

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