Wakilii

Buchunju v Wanjala and Another (MA NO.005 OF 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 187 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under inherent jurisdiction for substitution of deceased defendant's legal representative in concluded suit now at execution stage
Decision
Applicant granted leave to be substituted as defendant and respondent in the concluded suit and execution proceedings as administrator of deceased defendant's estate

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 held that it could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to substitute the legal representative of a deceased defendant even after judgment and during execution. Order 24 Rule 4 did not apply at the execution stage per Order 24 Rule 11, but the court found inherent power necessary for the ends of justice where the defendant died seven years before final judgment without the suit abating or his legal representative being added. Leave was granted for substitution. Each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to be substituted as defendant and respondent in the concluded suit and execution proceedings as administrator of deceased defendant's estate

Facts

Benjamin Buchunju was defendant in Civil Suit No.53 of 2010 at Mbale High Court concerning land ownership. He died on 18 September 2012 while the suit was pending, after an interlocutory judgment was entered on 15 April 2011. The suit continued in his absence and final judgment was entered against him on 18 March 2020, seven and a half years after his death. The respondents began execution proceedings. In April 2021, a notice to show cause was purportedly served on Benjamin Buchunju personally, despite his death in 2012. Betty Perusi Buchunju, widow and administrator of Benjamin Buchunju's estate, applied to be substituted as defendant and respondent. She had previously filed an application for review which was dismissed for lack of locus standi on the ground she was not a party to the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can be substituted as defendant and respondent in the suit and any application arising therefrom?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Leave is granted substituting the applicant as defendant in Civil Suit No.53 of 2010.
  • The applicant is substituted as respondent in any application arising from Civil Suit No.53 of 2010, being the Administrator of the estate of the late Benjamin Buchunju.
  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Substitution of Parties — Death of Defendant — Deceased Defendant in Concluded Suit at Execution Stage
Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides for substitution of a deceased defendant's legal representative, does not apply to proceedings in execution of a decree by virtue of Order 24 Rule 11, but the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant substitution where necessary for the ends of justice.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Exercise of Discretion — Circumstances Requiring Inherent Power
Courts may resort to inherent power in circumstances in which they believe that existing law does not adequately address the problem at hand, but the exercise of inherent power is discretionary and must be judicious.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Matters Requiring Judicial Discretion
A preliminary objection cannot suffice where what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Effect of Death of Defendant After Interlocutory Judgment
An interlocutory judgment does not terminate a suit. Where a defendant dies after interlocutory judgment but before final judgment, there remains a pending suit to which the legal representative of the deceased defendant can be added as a party under Order 24 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Time Limits for Application to Substitute Legal Representative
Where no specific time is prescribed by law for making an application under Order 24 Rule 4(1) to substitute a deceased defendant's legal representative, Section 34(2) of the Interpretation Act applies and the application must be made without unreasonable delay. A delay of seven years and six months constitutes unreasonable delay.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (2)

  • Good African Foundation Ltd and Another v Agricultural Business Initiative Trust (HCMA No. 1592 of 2021)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors [1999] 1 EA 696

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buchunju v Wanjala and Another (MA NO.005 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 187 (13 February 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.