Kabarungi Moreen and Nantale Joweria v Sserwada Ahamadah (Originating Summons No. 16 of 2025)

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.

Holding

Held that both plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the deceased's estate, have locus standi to bring the suit. The court found that sufficient evidence was not adduced to prove that the 2nd plaintiff suffered from mental illness as required under the Mental Health Act. The extension and amendment of letters of administration made without the consent of the 2nd plaintiff as co-administrator were invalid. Joint administrators must act together at all times under Section 272 of the Succession Act. The extended and amended letters of administration were cancelled and the original grant reverted to the three co-administrators.

Outcome

Extended and amended letters of administration cancelled; original grant reverted to three co-administrators

Facts

Following the death of Muhammed Gavamukulya, letters of administration were initially granted to Nantale Faridah in 2004. In 2016, Sserwada Ahamadah sued for revocation or joint administration. A consent judgment in 2016 resulted in joint letters of administration being issued to Sserwada Ahamadah, Nantale Faridah, and Nantale Joweria in 2018. These letters expired on 31 May 2025. Sserwada Ahamadah then filed ex parte applications for extension and amendment of the letters, claiming Nantale Faridah was deceased and Nantale Joweria was mentally incapacitated. The court granted both applications, leaving Sserwada Ahamadah as sole administrator. The plaintiffs, Kabarungi Moreen (granddaughter of the deceased and daughter of Nantale Joweria) and Nantale Joweria, challenged these orders, arguing they were made without the consent of the co-administrator and without proper evidence of mental incapacity.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to bring the originating summons.
2. Whether the plaintiffs instructed Redmond Associated Advocates to institute the originating summons.
3. Whether the extension and amendment of letters of administration without the consent of the co-administrator (2nd plaintiff) were valid.
4. Whether sufficient evidence was adduced to prove that the 2nd plaintiff suffers from mental illness rendering her incapable of consenting to the extension and amendment of letters of administration.

Orders

• Miscellaneous Application No. 5723 of 2025 is dismissed.
• The Rulings of this court issued vide HCMA No. 1617 of 2025 and HCMA No. 4800 of 2025 are hereby set aside.
• The Extended Letters of Administration issued out of the Ruling of this court in HCMA No. 1617 of 2025 are hereby cancelled.
• The Amended Letters of Administration issued out of a Ruling of this Court in HCMA No. 4800 of 2025 are hereby cancelled.
• The letters of Administration shall revert back to the names of the original administrators namely Sserwadda Ahamada, Nantale Faridah and Nantale Joweria as was issued vide Administration Cause No. 1205 of 2003.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (27)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Succession Act s.268(2)
• Succession Act s.272
• Succession Act s.269
• Succession Act s.256
• Succession Act s.337
• Succession Amendment Act s.259
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 r.8(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 r.8(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 r.9
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 r.12
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.29
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.30
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 24
• Judicature Act s.33
• Mental Health Act s.2
• Mental Health Act s.55
• Electronic Transactions Act s.3
• Electronic Transactions Act s.4
• Electronic Transactions Act s.6
• Electronic Transactions Act s.7
• Advocates Act s.48
• Advocates Act s.51
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 reg.2(1)

Cases cited (11)

• Njau & ors v City Council of Nairobi (1976-1985) 1 RA 397
• Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
• Mukisa Biscuit v West End Distributors (1969) EA 69
• Mukisa Biscuit v West End Distributors (1969) EA 696
• Kabale Housing Estate Tenants Association Limited v Kabale Municipal Local Government Council (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11
• Jaffer Brothers Ltd v Mbarara Municipal Council and 4 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2004)
• Banks versus Goodfellow
• Dr. Peter Musoke Gukina v Sudhir Ruparelia & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 2 of 2019)
• Lalwak Alex v Opio Mark (High Court Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2018)
• Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014)

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