Wakilii

Bugingo and Others v Sserunkuma and Others (Civil Suit 102 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 14 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declarations and orders concerning fraudulent dealings with estate property
Decision
Judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs with declarations that the suit property forms part of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol; lease to 3rd Defendant cancelled; permanent injunction granted against the Defendants; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the suit property formed part of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol, having been donated to her by John Baptist Kasozi as a kibanja. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, as administrators of the estate of Bosco Anywar Serunkuma, fraudulently sold the property to the 3rd Defendant in violation of the late Bruno Serunkuma's testamentary prohibition against sale. The 3rd Defendant did not conduct adequate due diligence and therefore did not acquire the property lawfully. The 4th Defendant (Buganda Land Board) acted fraudulently in granting a lease despite clear notice in the Will that the property could not be sold outside the Obol family. Judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs with orders cancelling the lease and directing the Plaintiffs to nominate administrators for Philomena's estate.

Outcome

Judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs with declarations that the suit property forms part of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol; lease to 3rd Defendant cancelled; permanent injunction granted against the Defendants; costs awarded to the Plaintiffs

Facts

The late Philomena Arombo Obol was married to Col. Primo Obol. After Obol died in 1971, his blood brother Nicholas Bruno Serunkuma adopted Obol's children and raised them with his own as one Serunkuma-Obol family. John Baptist Kasozi, an adopted son of Bruno, married Philomena's daughter Cotilda and donated a kibanja at Bulwa Zone, Rubaga Division, Kampala to his mother-in-law Philomena around 1975. Philomena used the land as a garden. Her children and grandchildren later decided to build a house on the land for her, but she died before its completion. The 1st Defendant, Charles Serunkuma (grandson of Philomena), and his mother the 2nd Defendant obtained Letters of Administration for the estate of Philomena's son Bosco Anywar Serunkuma (who had died) and purported to sell the suit property to the 3rd Defendant Mulumba Shafiq Ssebuggwawo for UGX 280,000,000. The 4th Defendant (Buganda Land Board) subsequently granted a lease to the 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiffs, who are beneficiaries of Philomena's estate, filed suit challenging these transactions as fraudulent.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit property formed part of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol or John Bosco Serunkuma Anywar
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol, have any interest in the suit land
  3. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently dealt with the suit property
  4. Whether the 3rd Defendant lawfully acquired the suit property
  5. Whether the 4th Defendant fraudulently approved and granted a lease on the suit property to the 3rd Defendant
  6. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The Kibanja on Kibuga Block 1 Plot 580, land at Bulwa Zone, Rubaga Division, Kampala and all developments thereon forms part of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol and not the late Bosco Anywar Serunkuma.
  • The Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the suit property.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants fraudulently and unlawfully dealt with the suit property.
  • The 3rd Defendant fraudulently acquired the suit property.
  • The 4th Defendant fraudulently approved and offered the lease of the suit property to the 3rd Defendant.
  • The lease offer to the 3rd Defendant is hereby cancelled immediately.
  • The Plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of the late Philomena Arombo-Obol shall nominate person(s) to process Letters of Administration of the estate.
  • If the Administrators desire to acquire registrable interest in the suit land, they shall apply to the Buganda Land Board accordingly.
  • The Buganda Land Board is prohibited from approving and offering a lease on the suit property to any other person(s), without the consent of the Administrators and/or beneficiaries.
  • The Buganda Land Board shall refund Uganda Shillings Twenty-Six Million (UGX 26,000,000) to Mulumba Shafiq Ssebuggwawo, which he paid as premium.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration is directed to vacate the caveat lodged on the Certificate of Title by Claire Kyakuwa, Andrew Bugingo Nganda and Kassim Alule and cancel the Certificate of Title in the name of Shafiq Mulumba Ssebuggwawo.
  • The Administrators of the estate of the late Philomena Arombo-Obol or any other person(s) that may lawfully acquire the lease, with their consent, shall make a fresh Application for registration on the Certificate of Title.
  • A permanent injunction issues against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from dealing with the suit property in any way.
  • The 3rd Defendant shall sue the 1st and 2nd Defendants for recovery of his money Uganda Shillings Two Hundred and Eighty Million Only (UGX 280,000,000) if he so wishes.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall give an account of all rental income collected from the suit property to the Administrators from the time they obtained the Letters of Administration till the tenant vacated the premises.
  • No damages have been awarded because the Plaintiffs are the ones occupying the suit property.
  • The Defendants shall bear the costs of this suit in equal proportions.

Rules and key headnotes

Estate Property — Fraudulent Disposition — Authority of Administrators
Where administrators of a deceased person's estate hold property in trust for beneficiaries and purport to sell that property in violation of a testamentary prohibition against sale outside the family, such a disposition is fraudulent regardless of the administrators' formal grant of Letters of Administration.
Bona Fide Purchaser — Due Diligence — Constructive Notice
A purchaser cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice where the will upon which he relies expressly prohibits sale of the property and restricts its disposition to family members only; such a purchaser has constructive notice of the beneficiaries' interests and is bound to make inquiries before purchase.
Kibanja Interests — Gifts — Registration Requirements
An informal transfer of a kibanja interest by way of gift, though not reduced to a formal deed or registered transfer, may be established through credible and unchallenged testimony where the donor and recipient's use of the land over decades is consistent with the alleged gift.
Letters of Administration — Duties of Administrators — Trust Obligations
Personal representatives of a deceased person's estate hold property in trust for the beneficiaries and cannot deal with estate property to their personal advantage or in a manner that defeats the interests of other beneficiaries; a purported sale by administrators without consulting all beneficiaries of family property constitutes a breach of trust.
Sale of Land — Due Diligence — Duty to Inquire
Lands are not vegetables which are bought from unknown sellers; buyers of land are expected to make thorough investigations not only of the land but also of the owner before purchase, including registry searches, boundary opening, physical inspection, and involvement of local authorities and beneficiaries where the land is family property.
Testamentary Restrictions — Life Interests — Remainders
Where a testator bequeaths property to a person for life with remainder to another upon specific conditions including a prohibition against sale, the remainderman holds the property in trust for designated beneficiaries and cannot defeat the testator's intention by selling the property to strangers.
Mailo Land — Buganda Land Board — Duties of Land Boards
A land board acting as agent of the Kabaka in administering mailo land must exercise the highest due diligence before granting leases, including verifying the authenticity of claims by purported kibanja owners and ensuring compliance with testamentary restrictions; failure to do so where the land board has notice of such restrictions constitutes fraud.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (18)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Makula International Ltd v HE Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Edward Gatsinzi & Anor v Lwanga Steven (High Court Civil Appeal No. 690 of 2004)
  • Jones v Smith (1841) 1 Hare 43
  • Yakobo v M.N. Senkungu & Others (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Vivo Energy (U) Ltd v Lydia Kisitu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2015)
  • Sir John Bagaire v Arnest Matovu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1996)
  • David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Nabanoba Deziranta & Anor v Kayiwa Joseph & Anor (Land Division Civil Suit No. 497 of 2005)
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Rudeja (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014)
  • Israel Lwanga v Leonard Mubiru & 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022)
  • Dr. Adeodanta Kekitinwa & 3 Others v Edward Maudo Wakida (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007)
  • Sulaiman Mbazira v Mande Kafeero Stuart (Land Division Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2014)
  • Luduula Fred & 6 Others v Reverand Canon Eriya Luzinda (Executor of the Will of the late Kaaya) (Land Division Civil Suit No. 2029 of 2016)
  • Lunco Contractors Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 6318 of 2004)
  • Obuntu Construction v Plan Build Technical Services (High Court Civil Suit No. 173 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bugingo and Others v Sserunkuma and Others (Civil Suit 102 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 14 (14 April 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.