Wakilii

In the matter of an application for access to information by Kibunga Godfrey (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 361 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for access to information held by the Administrator General's office
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

The High Court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The court held that while a will deposited with the Administrator General becomes a public document under Evidence Act s.73(b), applications for access to information must follow the statutory procedure under the Access to Information Act. The Chief Magistrate's Court is the court of first instance for complaints arising from an information officer's decision, with the High Court having only appellate jurisdiction. The applicant failed to prove that the Administrator General made a decision denying access, and failed to exhaust the statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Kibunga Godfrey, a grandchild of the late Lazaro Lubuto Kyoto, sought access to documents in Succession Register No. SR 4B/69 held by the Administrator General's office. The late Lazaro had left a will deposited with the Administrator General. The applicant, through his lawyers, wrote to the Administrator General seeking access to the succession register. The applicant alleged that the Administrator General advised him to obtain a court order granting access, though no documentary evidence of this advice was provided. The applicant then brought this application directly to the High Court under the Judicature Act and Civil Procedure Act, seeking an order to be availed the documents in the succession register.

Issues

  1. Whether the documents in Succession Register No. 4B/69 are public documents.
  2. Whether the applicant should be availed the documents in Succession Register No. 4B/69.
  3. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application in the first instance.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of proper jurisdiction.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant to bear.

Rules and key headnotes

Access to Information — Public Documents — Wills Deposited with Public Bodies
A will is a private document, but once deposited with a public entity such as the Administrator General's office with the intent that it forms part of the public record, it ceases to be a private document and becomes a public document by virtue of Evidence Act s.73(b).
Access to Information — Statutory Procedure — Jurisdiction
Applications for access to information held by public bodies must follow the statutory procedure under the Access to Information Act. The Chief Magistrate's Court is the court of first instance for complaints arising from an information officer's decision under s.36 of the Act, with the High Court having only appellate jurisdiction under s.37.
Access to Information — Conditions for Court Application
An applicant seeking a court order granting access to information must prove: (1) that they made an application to the information officer responsible for the information; (2) that the application was proper and in accordance with the Access to Information Act; and (3) that the information officer denied access to the information.
Jurisdiction — High Court — Appellate Jurisdiction
Where a statute vests the High Court with appellate jurisdiction, the High Court shall not be the court of first instance but shall be an appellate court, notwithstanding its unlimited original jurisdiction.
Access to Estate Information — Data Protection and Privacy
While information in a will deposited with the Administrator General becomes public, the Administrator General has a duty to ensure that information belonging to the deceased is not published or distributed to persons who might cause detriment to the estate. An applicant seeking access to such information should prove consent of the administrator of the estate or the next of kin, having regard to the Data Protection and Privacy Act.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (3)

  • Greenwatch v Attorney General (HCMC No. 232 of 2009)
  • Center for Health Human Rights and Development v Executive Director Mulago National Referral Hospital (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Rabbo Enterprises Limited (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2004)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In the matter of an application for access to information by Kibunga Godfrey (Miscellaneous Cause 2 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 361 (21 May 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.