Byomuhangi v Rugumya (Civil Miscellaneous Application 57 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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 court held that where a party to a pending appeal dies and no executor or administrator has been appointed, the court may appoint an administrator ad litem under section 222 of the Succession Act to represent the deceased's estate for the limited purpose of defending the appeal. Such appointment does not require full compliance with procedures for substantive grants of administration and may be made where urgency demands it to prevent abatement of proceedings or injustice to the surviving party.

Outcome

Respondent appointed as administrator ad litem and substituted as party to pending appeal; appeal to proceed with directions for filing of submissions

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2018 challenging a trial court decision in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2014 that declared the late Rujabuka Paul the owner of suit land. Rujabuka Paul died before conclusion of the appeal. No executor or administrator had been appointed by the deceased's family to defend the appeal. The applicant sought appointment of the respondent, Rugumya Jones, who is the older son of the late Rujabuka Paul, as administrator ad litem to defend the appeal. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the family was in the process of appointing an administrator and the application was premature. No evidence was adduced to support the claim that the family had commenced the appointment process.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent should be appointed as administrator ad litem and substituted as a respondent in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2018.
2. What remedies are available.

Orders

• The respondent is appointed as administrator ad litem only for the limited purpose of defending Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2018.
• The respondent is substituted to become the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2018 and the memorandum of appeal shall be amended to reflect this order.
• The respondent is authorized to plead or act on behalf of the late Rujabuka Paul in this case with full powers as a party.
• Any expenses or costs incurred shall be borne by the estate.
• The appellant is given two weeks from the date of delivery of this ruling to file and serve written submissions; the respondent is given two weeks to respond; any rejoinder should be filed within one week from service of respondent's submissions.
• The appeal is fixed for mention on 13th October 2023.
• Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Succession Act s.222
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 4(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 24 rule 1

Cases cited (6)

• Mugassha Rodney v Housing Finance Bank (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1132 of 2020)
• Okway John Kimbo v Oddia Nuru (HCMA No. 39 of 2019)
• Winrose Emmah Ndinda Kiamba v Agnes Nthambi Kasyoka [2021] eKLR
• Estate of Rusell Vs Snow, 829, SW.2d 136
• Okway John Kitimba v Oddia Nuru (HCMA No. 39 of 2016)
• Mckay Vs. MK Nasb 97 Tenn 236, 36 S.W.A 109, 1896

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Mbalirwa and Others v Garelnabi and Others (HCT-01-LD-MA 107 of 2025) followed

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