Itinot and Another v Irimo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0051 of 2025)
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.
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 dismissed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain burial of the deceased at her late partner's ancestral home. The court held that a person's place of burial is not determined by the existence of a legal marriage but primarily by the expressed or implied wishes of the deceased and concerned parties. Where the deceased lived with the late partner for over 20 years without complaint or eviction, and continued living in the same house after his death until her own demise, this evidence sufficiently indicated the known wishes of both deceased persons. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case warranting restraint of the burial.
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction dismissed; burial of the late Alupo Rose may proceed at the ancestral home of the late Obwangor Joseph Cuthbert
Facts
The applicants are administrators of the estate of the late Obwangor Joseph Cuthbert. They sought to restrain the respondents from burying the late Alupo Rose at the ancestral home of the late Obwangor Joseph, arguing she was not related to them by blood or marriage. The respondents stated that the late Alupo Rose lived with the late Obwangor Joseph Cuthbert as his wife from 1990 until his death in 2012, and continued living in the same house until her own death. The administration of the estate was subject to a separate dispute in the Family Division regarding whether a legal marriage existed between the deceased persons.
Issues
- Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for grant of an order of a temporary injunction?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.14
- Judicature Act s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.9
Cases cited (6)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
- Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
- Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (HCCS No. 630 of 1993)
- Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
- Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
- Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza [1987] HCB 79
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.