Wakilii

Jjumba and Another v Semuyinde and Another (Civil Suit 849 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 150 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff (1st Plaintiff) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of land
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the 1st plaintiff with orders for payment of compensation, transfer of land title, vacant possession, general damages, costs, and interest. The 2nd plaintiff's suit dismissed.

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

Held that where a testator bequeaths property to a child who predeceases the testator but leaves a lineal descendant, the bequest does not lapse by operation of section 96 of the Succession Act. The lineal descendant (grandchild) is entitled to take the bequest. The first plaintiff, being the son of the deceased beneficiary, has legal capacity to take control of the suit property and compensation. The second plaintiff failed to prove she was the administrator of the deceased beneficiary's estate and her suit was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the 1st plaintiff with orders for payment of compensation, transfer of land title, vacant possession, general damages, costs, and interest. The 2nd plaintiff's suit dismissed.

Facts

The late Ssezi Musoke Ssalongo made a Will bequeathing land at Naalya to his son Fred Kafeero Mugagga. Fred Kafeero Mugagga died intestate on 18 December 1998, leaving behind a widow (2nd plaintiff) and a son (1st plaintiff). The testator Ssezi Musoke Ssalongo died on 1 February 1999, after his son's death. The Will was proved and probate granted to the defendants. Part of the suit property was compulsorily acquired by UNRA for the Northern Bypass project, and compensation of Shs 139,361,394 was deposited in court. The defendants, as executors of the Will, refused to hand over the suit property to the plaintiffs, contending that the bequest to Fred Kafeero Mugagga lapsed when he predeceased the testator. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to the property and compensation as beneficiaries of the deceased son's estate.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are son and widow respectively of the late Fred Kafeero Mugagga?
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are beneficiaries to the estate of the late Ssezi Musoke Ssalongo?
  3. Whether the plaintiffs have any interest in the land at Kyadondo Block 221 Plot 758 at Naalya?
  4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the sum of Shs 139,361,394 being compensation for part of the land?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The suit brought by the 2nd plaintiff (Justine Muyanja Kafeero) against the defendants is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The suit filed by the 1st plaintiff succeeds.
  • An order directing the Registrar, High Court (Land Division) to pay the sum of Shs 139,361,394 to the 1st plaintiff.
  • A declaration that land comprised in Kyadondo Block 221 Plot 758 land at Naalya or any such residue belongs to the 1st plaintiff.
  • An order directing Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) to surrender the duplicate certificate of title for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 221 Plot 758 land at Naalya or any such residue to the 1st plaintiff.
  • An order directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to effect transfer of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 221 Plot 758 land at Naalya or any such residue to the 1st plaintiff.
  • An order directing the defendants to vacate land comprised in Kyadondo Block 221 Plot 758 land at Naalya or any such residue.
  • An order directing the defendants jointly and/or severally to pay general damages of Shs 30,000,000 to the 1st plaintiff.
  • An order directing the defendants jointly and/or severally to pay costs of the suit to the 1st plaintiff.
  • An order directing the defendants jointly and/or severally to pay interest of 15% per annum on general damages and costs of the suit from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Wills — Anti-lapse Provisions — Bequest to Child Who Predeceases Testator
Where a testator bequeaths property to a child in a Will and that child dies before the testator but leaves a lineal descendant, the bequest does not lapse by operation of section 96 of the Succession Act (Cap 162). The lineal descendant who survives the testator is entitled to take the bequest as if the death of the child beneficiary had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears in the Will.
Wills — Lapse of Bequests — General Rule
The general rule is that when a bequest is made to a beneficiary in a Will and that beneficiary dies before the testator, the bequest will lapse and form part of the residue of the testator's property under section 92(1) of the Succession Act (Cap 162), unless an exception applies.
Lineal Descendants — Definition and Scope
A lineal descendant means a person who is descended in a direct line from the deceased and includes a child, a grandchild of the deceased, and any person related to the deceased in a direct descending line up to six degrees downwards, as defined in section 1(ma) of the Succession (Amendment) Act 2022.
Anti-lapse Provisions — Effect on Estate Distribution
The effect of anti-lapse laws is to prevent the bequest from lapsing and to put the property into the estate of the deceased beneficiary to be dealt with as part of his or her estate, either according to his or her Will or as part of his or her intestate property.
Lineal Descendants — Capacity to Take Under Anti-lapse Provisions
Where a bequest to a child does not lapse due to anti-lapse provisions, the lineal descendant (grandchild) living at the testator's death has legal capacity to take the bequest directly, taking through all degrees according to their stock in equal shares if more than one, provided no parent of the lineal descendant is living at the testator's death and capable of taking.
Customary Marriage — Registration — Effect of Non-registration
Failure to register a customary marriage under section 6(1) of the Customary Marriage (Registration) Act (Cap 248) does not invalidate the marriage. There must be evidence of customary ceremonies of the community or tribe having been performed before one can be considered customarily married.
Parentage — Proof — Birth Certificate as Prima Facie Evidence
Where the name of the father of a child is entered in the register of births, a certified copy of that entry is prima facie evidence that the person named as the father is the father of the child under section 71(1) of the Children's Act (Cap 59). The burden to prove otherwise lies on the person alleging that the named person is not the father under section 70 of the Children's Act.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jjumba_and_Another_v_Semuyinde_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_849_of_2018)_[2023]_UGHCLD_150_(16_June_2023)
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.