Wakilii

Mukasa & 9 Others v Mukasa & Another (Civil Suits 190 of 2018 & 209 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 10 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed; Counterclaim Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated civil suits for revocation of probate, accounting, and distribution of estate; defendants filed counterclaim for intermeddling
Decision
Both the suit and counterclaim partly succeeded. Probate revoked and new letters of administration granted to five beneficiaries. Second defendant discharged from administration. Defendants ordered to refund proceeds from sale of beneficiary's land and distribute two bibanja. Court found plaintiffs intermeddled in estate.

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

Probate granted to administrators revoked for failure to file inventory within prescribed time. Court found administrators failed to distribute two bibanja at Bugulo to beneficiaries as required by the will. Plaintiffs intermeddled in estate by collecting rent without authorization. New letters of administration granted to five beneficiaries including retained first defendant. Defendants ordered to refund UGX 70 million from sale of beneficiary's land.

Outcome

Both the suit and counterclaim partly succeeded. Probate revoked and new letters of administration granted to five beneficiaries. Second defendant discharged from administration. Defendants ordered to refund proceeds from sale of beneficiary's land and distribute two bibanja. Court found plaintiffs intermeddled in estate.

Facts

The deceased Hajji Nasibu Mukasa died testate. His biological children (plaintiffs 1-9) and widow (plaintiff 10) sued the administrators (defendants) alleging they failed to distribute the estate according to the will and did not file an inventory. The defendants obtained probate on 10 May 2004. They filed no inventory until 15 May 2018. The will directed that two bibanja at Bugulo be distributed according to Sharia Law, which the administrators never completed. Property at Bweyogerere (Block 236 Plots 112 and 252) containing commercial buildings was to generate rental income for beneficiaries but not be sold. From 2018, plaintiff Sarah Nattembo collected rent from this commercial property, distributing proceeds to beneficiaries but excluding the first defendant and making no contributions to Wakufu (charitable trust) as required by the will. The administrators sold land that was the beneficial share of Hasifa Nakirya Mukasa for UGX 70 million but never remitted the proceeds to her.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action against the Defendants
  2. Whether the Defendants have distributed the estate of the late Hajji Nasibu Mukasa in accordance with his last Will
  3. Whether there is a just cause for revocation of Probate granted to the Defendants in Administration Cause No. 0252 of 2004
  4. Whether the Plaintiffs have intermeddled in the estate of the late Hajji Nasibu Mukasa
  5. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The Probate granted to the Defendants on 10th May 2004 is hereby revoked for failure to file an inventory within the prescribed time.
  • The Probate/Letters of Administration (With Will Annexed) shall be granted to Muhammed Kibuuka Mukasa, Sarah Nattembo, Hajji Amisi Kirumba Mukasa, Bayiga Halima Mukasa and Hawa Nakagwa.
  • The Defendants shall refund Uganda Shillings Seventy Million only (UGX 70,000,000) to Hasifa Nakirya Mukasa, being proceeds from the sale of her beneficial share immediately and in any case not later than the 30th day of April 2025.
  • The 2nd Defendant is discharged from the administration of the estate.
  • The 2nd Defendant shall remain in occupation of the piece of land given to him by the deceased uninterrupted.
  • The new Administrators shall adhere to the Will of the deceased and execute it accordingly.
  • The new administrators shall ensure that the two bibanjas in Bugulo are distributed to the beneficiaries in accordance with the Will.
  • No orders have been made to either of the parties to account for what they have been receiving because all beneficiaries have been receiving money from the rental income.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Revocation of Probate — Failure to File Inventory — Mandatory Duty
An executor or administrator has a mandatory duty to exhibit an inventory to the court within six months under Section 273(1) of the Succession Act, and failure to do so is a ground for revocation of the grant under Section 230, excusable only upon application for extension of time.
Duty of Administrators — Distribution According to Will
Administrators of an estate have a duty to distribute the estate to rightful beneficiaries according to the testator's will, and failure to discharge this duty for over twenty years without justification establishes a cause of action for beneficiaries.
Intermeddling — Collection of Rent by Beneficiaries
A person intermeddling with an estate under Section 265(2) of the Succession Act includes a beneficiary who, without authorization from administrators or after withdrawal of authorization, takes possession of estate property or collects rental income, even where the beneficiary has an interest in the estate.
Testator's Wishes — Gender Discrimination in Devolution
Where a testator provides in a will that property shall devolve only to grandchildren through male descendants and not through female descendants, the court will not vary the will even if the provision is discriminatory on grounds of gender, provided the will was not contested in proper time and the provision reflects the testator's stated wishes.
Grant of Administration — Selection of Administrators
In granting new letters of administration after revocation of probate, the court may appoint multiple beneficiaries including one of the previous administrators where the court is satisfied they are actively involved in estate management and capable of working together, and may exclude beneficiaries residing abroad who have not participated in proceedings.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dumba and Another v Bagambe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2022)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Kauma v Sekajja [1995] KALR 18
  • Kayemba v Mulwana and 3 Others [1999] KALR 738

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukasa & 9 Others v Mukasa & Another (Civil Suits 190 of 2018 & 209 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 10 (17 March 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.