Jjuuko and 16 Others v Jjuuko Kikyonkyo (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2019)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Letters of Administration must be granted in respect of the whole estate of a deceased person, not merely a portion. The respondent's concealment of the other widows and children when applying, and her failure to seek their consent, amounted to fraud and misrepresentation justifying revocation for just cause under s.234 of the Succession Act. The special certificate of title obtained while the original duplicate certificate still existed in a family member's possession was invalid. The Court revoked the grant, vested administration in the Administrator General for distribution within 180 days, and ordered each widow to remain in her respective home under s.26(1) and Schedule 2 of the Succession Act.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Letters of Administration and special certificate of title revoked and vested in the Administrator General for distribution of the whole estate within 180 days

Facts

The late Hajji Salim Jjuuko died intestate, survived by four widows and 25 children who lived in separate residential homes with their respective children. The respondent, one of the widows, applied for and obtained Letters of Administration vide Nakawa Administration Cause No. 496 of 2013, naming herself as the only widow and her seven children as the only beneficiaries, and listing only the property at Busiro Block 438 Plot 984 at Nkumba. She sought the grant because UNRA intended to compulsorily acquire that property, her matrimonial home, for the Entebbe Express Highway. She then applied for a special certificate of title, though the original duplicate certificate was in the possession of the deceased's sister, and presented the Letters to UNRA, receiving compensation of over UGX 1 billion. The other widows and children, as beneficiaries, challenged the grant alleging fraud, forgery and concealment of material facts. The trial judge upheld the grant as valid only in respect of the respondent and her children. The other beneficiaries appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the Letters of Administration granted to the respondent were valid.
2. Whether the respondent committed fraud, forgery or misrepresentation in obtaining the Letters of Administration.
3. Whether the trial judge should have revoked the Letters of Administration.
4. Whether the compensation funds paid by UNRA belonged solely to the respondent and her seven children or to the whole estate.
5. Whether the trial judge properly applied the law on distribution of an intestate estate.
6. Whether the respondent obtained good title to the property comprised in Busiro Block 438 Plot 984 at Nkumba.

Orders

• The Letters of Administration issued to the respondent are null and void and are hereby revoked.
• Letters of Administration are cancelled and vested in the Administrator General to distribute the estate within 180 days from the date of judgment.
• Each widow and her family are to remain in their respective homes and properties under Section 26(1) and Schedule 2 para 1 of the Succession Act until legally vested by the Administrator General.
• The estate properties shall be distributed amongst all beneficiaries in accordance with the status quo prevailing for each widow and her family.
• The monies paid to the respondent to be held on the same account until the estate is distributed, and paid to the widow whose land was compulsorily acquired.
• Should the estate remain undistributed after 180 days, the matter be returned to this Court for further orders.
• The special Certificate of Title for Busiro Block 438 Plot 984 at Nkumba be cancelled and vested in the Administrator General to transfer to the widow in occupation.
• Each widow, children and beneficiaries to remain in occupation of the properties they occupy until distribution.
• Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Succession Act Cap 162 s.190
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.234
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.25
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.26
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.27
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.28
• Succession Act Cap 162 s.29
• Succession Act Cap 162 Second Schedule para 1
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 230 s.70
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.3
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Francis Ddida Ndugga vs N. Nanfinkombi (1981) HCB 79
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (II) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• Ratilal Gordhandhai Patel vs Laljimakanji [1957] EA 314 at 317
• Fam International Ltd and Another v Mohamed Hamid El-Fatih (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
• Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
• Ephraim Ongom Odongo v Francis Binega Donge (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008)

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.

• Uganda Development Bank Limited v Bulamu Coffee Buyers, Processors & Exporters Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1093 of 2020)

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