Musoke v Kujjaza & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 9 of 2024)
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
The High Court dismissed an application seeking appointment of administrators pendente lite under section 218 of the Succession Act. The court held that section 218 requires a pending suit touching the validity of a will or for obtaining or revoking probate or letters of administration. The applicant's desire to have representatives appointed so he could sue them regarding a land purchase from the deceased did not fall within the section's scope. The wrong provision was cited and no pending suit of the requisite type existed.
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs
Facts
In 2006, the applicant purchased a kibanja measuring 1.5 acres at Kiryagonja, Kakusubula, Wakiso District from the late Sserunkuuma Wilson. The applicant constructed permanent structures on the land. A third party, Ssenfuma James Kiwanuka, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and later in 2014 filed Civil Suit No. 17 of 2014 for recovery of the land. Judgment was entered in favour of Ssenfuma, and the applicant's houses were demolished during execution. The estate of the late Sserunkuuma Wilson had no appointed administrator. The applicant sought appointment of the respondents (the deceased's wife and customary heir) as administrators pendente lite so he could sue them regarding the land purchase.
Issues
- Whether the Respondents can be appointed administrators pendente lite of the estate of the late Sserunkuuma Wilson for purposes of litigation.
- Whether the parties are entitled to any remedies.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Succession Act s.218
- Succession Act s.222
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
- Limitation Act s.5
Cases cited (6)
- Ssemakadde Sande v Mukwaaya William (Miscellaneous Application No. 2762 of 2023)
- Themi Nakibuuka Sebalu v Peter Samatimba and 2 Others (SCCA Application No. 15 of 2014)
- In the Matter of the Estate of the Late Mary Busi Bahati (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 04 of 2023)
- Tayebwa and 5 Others v Kyatwoha (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 60 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 179
- Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2000] EA LR 255
- Nabisere Geraldine v Harry Fred Mutebi Sseruga and Another (Civil Suit No. 565 of 2012)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.