Wakilii

Male H. Mabirizi v Kizza & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 72 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 1 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Notice of Motion for declarations concerning the validity of a will and disqualification of respondents as administrators
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 a Notice of Motion under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 is appropriate only where rights guaranteed under Chapter 4 of the Constitution are already ascertained and have been violated. Where the applicant challenges the validity of a will on grounds of forgery, contests paternity, and alleges criminal intermeddling, the issues require evidence beyond affidavits—including potentially forensic handwriting analysis and DNA testing—and fall under the Succession Act procedure. The application was therefore defective in form and dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking declarations that the late Mohamed Bazinduse Lulibedda Mutumba died intestate, that a purported will dated 15 June 2009 was invalid and forged, that the respondents were disqualified from administering the estate, and that they had intermeddled with the estate. The applicant claimed to be a lineal descendant excluded from the will and alleged violations of his constitutional rights to family, heritage, and property. The first and third respondents filed affidavits stating that the will was authentic, that it was presented and verified at a family meeting in September 2022, and that the applicant was not the biological son of the deceased. Respondents raised preliminary objections that the application should have been brought by plaint under the Succession Act rather than by Notice of Motion under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, that allegations of forgery required forensic evidence and possibly criminal investigation, and that paternity required proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the application by Notice of Motion was the proper procedure for challenging the validity of a will and seeking declarations regarding intermeddling with an estate.
  2. Whether the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 permits the application procedure used where the rights claimed are not yet ascertained or proven.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Procedure — Scope of Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 — Rights That Must Be Ascertained and Guaranteed
The Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 applies only to the enforcement of human rights and freedoms guaranteed under Chapter 4 of the Constitution that are already ascertained. Where one claims rights that are not yet ascertained or proved, a different procedure must be used to prove those rights.
Civil Procedure — Applications by Notice of Motion — Limitations Where Facts Require Extensive Evidence
An application by Notice of Motion under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 is not appropriate where the issues raised require more than affidavit evidence, including forensic evidence by handwriting experts to prove forgery, scientific proof such as DNA testing to establish paternity, or criminal investigation and trial to establish intermeddling with an estate under Section 268 of the Succession Act.
Succession & Estates — Challenge to Validity of Will — Proper Procedure — Succession Act Not Human Rights Act
Issues concerning proof of paternity of an applicant, validity of a contested will, and capacity of respondents to be appointed as administrators of an estate are serious issues that require more than affidavit evidence and should be brought under the Succession Act (as amended) rather than as a human rights application by Notice of Motion.
Succession & Estates — Intermeddling with Estate — Criminal Offence Requiring Investigation and Trial
Under Section 268(1) of the Succession Act (as amended), interference with the estate of a deceased person is a criminal offence liable to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding ten years. A claim of intermeddling requires police investigation and a trial before conviction, and cannot properly be determined by an application under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • William Mukasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (2013) 1 HCB 68
  • Asiimwe & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Applications No. 07 and 08 of 2022)
  • Kifampa & Another v Attorney General (H.C. Misc. Cause No. 154 of 2017)
  • Kabagambe & 2 Others v Ntungwa (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2021)
  • Yahaya Walusimbi v Justine Nakalanzi & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 386 of 2018)
  • William Mukasa v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2009)
  • Union Trade Centre Limited v Attorney General of Rwanda (EACJ Appellate Division Appeal No. 1 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Male H. Mabirizi v Kizza & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 72 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 1 (10 January 2025)
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.