Hadijah Ndagire and Anor v Mohammad Kasozi and 15 Others (Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014)

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

Held that a plaint seeking recovery of estate property must be supported by an inventory filed under section 278(1) of the Succession Act. The statutory duty to file an inventory within six months of the grant, or within extended time granted by court, is mandatory. Without a filed inventory, there is no valid foundation to establish what property forms part of the estate. The absence of an inventory from 1993 to 2014 made it impossible to ascertain whether the suit land formed part of the deceased's estate. The plaint disclosed no cause of action and was rejected under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaint rejected under Order 7 rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action; Plaintiffs at liberty to file fresh suit

Facts

The Plaintiffs' father, Abdala Kibira Kaaya, died intestate in 1991. His elder children obtained letters of administration which were later revoked by consent judgment in 2006 for mismanagement. The Administrator General was appointed administrator pendente lite. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently subdivided suit land (formerly Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 629) into multiple plots and made unlawful dealings. The 1st Plaintiff and another family member were granted letters of administration in February 2013. In 2014 they filed suit seeking declarations that the transactions were fraudulent and void, cancellation of titles, transfer of land to them, and permanent injunction. Only the 13th and 16th Defendants filed defences. The matter proceeded ex parte against all Defendants.

Issues

1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the Defendants?
2. Whether the suit land described in formerly Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 629 of Bunamwaya forms part of the estate of the late Abdala Kibira Kaaya?
3. Whether the subdivisions of the suit land were legally done?
4. Whether the subsequent dealings/sale transactions by the Defendants were justifiable in the law?
5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• The Plaint is rejected for failure to disclose a cause of action on grounds that there is no inventory to the estate of the late Abdala Kibira Kaaya on the court record.
• The absence of the inventory to the estate of late Abdala Kibira Kaaya that has been under legal administration since 1993 makes it impossible for this court to ascertain whether the suit land is part of his estate or not and by extension the rights of the Plaintiffs thereunder.
• Suit is dismissed and the Plaintiffs are at liberty to file a fresh suit.
• Costs shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Succession Act Cap 162 s.259
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.278(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 7 rule 11

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Rhoda Peace Tumusiime and Another v Kalyango Edward and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3283 of 2025)
• Nuhu Ntege v Tomusange and 15 Others (Civil Suit 439 of 2013)
• Kafeero & 2 Others v Kamoga & 17 Others (Civil Suit 761 of 2014)

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