Wakilii

Jamal Walji Limited v Murtazaali Kassam and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2300 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 7 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit for rectification of land title, seeking appointment of administrator pendente lite and addition of estate as party
Decision
1st Respondent appointed administrator pendente lite; estate added as party to main suit; application for Administrator General to be appointed dismissed

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 court held that the main suit was not barred by res judicata as the matter had not been finally decided in prior proceedings. The estate of the late Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai was added as a party to the main suit. The court appointed the 1st Respondent, Murtazali Kassam, as administrator pendente lite of the estate rather than the Administrator General, given his status as a lineal descendant and beneficiary with knowledge of the facts.

Outcome

1st Respondent appointed administrator pendente lite; estate added as party to main suit; application for Administrator General to be appointed dismissed

Facts

Jamal Walji Limited filed Civil Suit No. 0197 of 2023 seeking rectification of a certificate of title for land comprised in LRV 4478 Folio 23 to reflect 50% shareholding for the applicant and 50% for the estates of the late Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam and the late Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai. The suit property was co-owned by the applicant, the estate of Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam, and the estate of Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai. In 2022, Ebrahim Alarakhia Kassam, who had been the administrator of Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai's estate, passed away. No letters of administration had been granted to any person for Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai's estate. The applicant sought a limited grant of letters of administration to the Administrator General to represent the estate in the suit and to add the estate as a defendant. The 1st Respondent, Murtazali Kassam, opposed the application, arguing it was res judicata based on prior proceedings in H.C.M.A No. 1271 of 2020 and H.C.M.C 29 of 2020, and that he had previously been appointed administrator pendente lite of the estate.

Issues

  1. Whether the doctrine of res judicata and the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam raised in the main suit vide H.C.C.S No. 197 of 2023 take precedence over the instant application.
  2. Whether there is an existing administrator pendente lite.
  3. Whether the estate of the late Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai which is sought to be represented is a party to the main suit vide H.C.C.S No. 197 of 2023.
  4. Whether the 3rd respondent should be appointed as administrator ad-litem and substituted as a defendant in Civil Suit No.0197 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application is not res judicata.
  • The 1st Respondent, Murtazali Kassam, is appointed administrator pendente lite for the purposes of Civil Suit 197 of 2023 to represent the estate of Kulsum Binte Dahyabhai.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Requirements for Defence to Succeed
For the defence of res judicata to succeed, a party must prove: (a) there exists a previous suit in which the matter was in issue; (b) a competent court heard the matter in issue; (c) the matter in issue was heard and finally decided in the former suit; (d) the issue has been raised once again in a fresh suit; and (e) the parties were the same or litigating under the same title.
Res Judicata — Matter Not Finally Decided
Where a court declines to adjudicate a matter on procedural grounds and advises the party to institute a different nature of action to seek the remedies sought, the matter in issue has not been finally decided and the defence of res judicata does not apply to a subsequent suit properly constituted.
Joinder of Parties — Addition of Necessary Parties
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of proceedings order that any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit be added as a party.
Administrator Pendente Lite — Appointment Where Estate is Co-Owner
Where suit property is co-owned by an estate that has no legal representative, it is befitting for the estate to be added as a defendant and for an administrator pendente lite to be appointed in order to avoid the would-be defendant challenging the decision due to lack of a fair hearing.
Administrator Pendente Lite — Powers Limited to Litigation
The powers of an administrator pendente lite are tied to the litigation and therefore extinguish upon final resolution of the matter.
Administrator Pendente Lite — Appointment of Beneficiary Over Administrator General
Where a lineal descendant and beneficiary of an estate is well versed with the facts of the case and is taking active steps to acquire a grant for the estate, the court may appoint such person as administrator pendente lite rather than the Administrator General, particularly where the Administrator General's office is heavily encumbered with many estates.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Ssemakula v Magala and Others [1979] HCB 90
  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and 3 Ors v Eric Tibebagarsa
  • Okumu and 7 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited and 6 Others [2023] UGSC 32
  • National Housing and Construction Company Ltd v Uganda Institution of Professional Engineers Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2023)
  • Gibbs v Roy, 85 C.L.J 280
  • Okway John Kimbo (Legal representative of Anna Ayeyotho) v Oddia Nuru and Jamaida Oddia (Miscellaneous Application No. 0039 of 2016)

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.

Jamal_Walji_Limited_v_Murtazaali_Kassam_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2300_of_2024)_[2026]_UGHCLD_7_(28_January_2026)
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.