Huo & Another v Dong (Civil Suit 22 of 2018)
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 court held that an unwitnessed will amendment is invalid under Succession Act s.47(1)(c). Only 80 shares in Sillah Ltd formed part of the deceased's Ugandan estate; other properties were either sold before death or belonged to companies as separate legal entities. The executor breached his statutory duties by failing to file an inventory and account within six months and one year respectively. However, there was no fraud in the probate application. The executor must transmit 40 shares to the first plaintiff as bequeathed. The grant of probate remains in force but the executor must provide an account within one month.
Outcome
Letters of Probate remain in force; executor ordered to transmit 40 shares in Sillah Limited to first plaintiff and provide account of estate within specified timeframes; permanent injunction granted restraining executor from dealing with plaintiff's shares
Facts
Kim Dong Yun died on 7 June 2011, leaving a will dated 8 March 2010 appointing his brother, the defendant, as executor. The will bequeathed 40 shares in Sillah Limited to the first plaintiff (widow) and 40 shares to the defendant. The defendant obtained Letters of Probate on 18 July 2012. The first plaintiff claimed the deceased made a second will on 17 April 2011 and that the defendant acted fraudulently by failing to disclose all estate properties, failing to file an inventory and account, and failing to transmit the 40 shares. The defendant argued that certain properties mentioned in the will were sold by the deceased before death, that the property in South Korea was outside court jurisdiction, and that other properties belonged to companies (Soon Production Ltd and Sillah Ltd) as separate legal entities. The defendant also contended that the first plaintiff had rejected the shares and received substantial funds from the estate. By the date of suit filing (5 February 2018), over five years after the grant, no inventory or account had been filed.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant disclosed all the properties pertaining to the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun in his Petition for Probate?
- Whether the Defendant is liable for fraudulent management of the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun?
- Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun disposed of some of his properties prior to his death?
- Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun made any changes to his will prior to his death?
- Whether the Defendant has mismanaged the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun?
- Whether in view of what the 1st Plaintiff has so far received from the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun, the 1st Plaintiff is still entitled to 40 shares in Sillah Ltd?
- Whether the executor of the will carried out his duties and whether there is reasonable cause for not?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The Letters of Probate granted to Dong Hoon Kim on 18th July, 2012 in respect of the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun vide Probate No. 323 of 2012 shall remain in force until 10th April, 2025 for further court determination.
- The Defendant should provide this Honorable Court with an account of the management of the estate of the deceased within one month from the date of this Judgment.
- This court declares that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to 40 shares in Sillah Limited as per the deceased's last will and testament dated 8th March, 2010 which shall be transmitted to the 1st Plaintiff by Defendant within two (2) months from date of this Judgement.
- A permanent injunction is hereby issued against the Defendant restraining him from any further dealing and/or undertaking any dealings with the 40 shares bequeathed to the 1st Plaintiff in Sillah Limited.
- Costs of the Suit are awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Succession Act Cap. 268 s.47(1)(c)
- Succession Act Cap. 268 s.273(1)
- Succession Act Cap. 268 s.230(1)
- Succession Act Cap. 268 s.230(2)(e)
- Succession Act Cap. 268 s.2
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.102
- Evidence Act Cap. 8 s.103
- Companies Act Cap. 106 s.50(1)
- Companies Act Cap. 106 s.50(2)(b)
- Companies Act Cap. 106 s.51
Cases cited (3)
- Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
- Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619
- Romano Salim and 5 Others v Saidan Atala (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.