Wakilii

Nabukenya v Nalubega and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 218 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review arising from an administration cause to recall and rectify letters of administration
Decision
Grant of letters of administration recalled and to be re-issued with Applicant added as co-administrator; claims for accounting and restoration dismissed for want of jurisdiction in review proceedings

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 court granted the application for review and recalled the grant of letters of administration for rectification to include the Applicant as co-administrator. Where a person authorised by the Administrator General to obtain letters of administration is omitted from the grant, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. However, claims for accounting and restoration of estate assets cannot be determined in a review application and must be pursued in a separate revocation suit.

Outcome

Grant of letters of administration recalled and to be re-issued with Applicant added as co-administrator; claims for accounting and restoration dismissed for want of jurisdiction in review proceedings

Facts

The Applicant and the late Ssajalyabene had five children. The Applicant and the four Respondents jointly petitioned the court for letters of administration of the deceased's estate. The Administrator General issued a certificate of no objection dated 9 February 2021 authorising the Applicant and the Respondents to obtain letters of administration. The family entered a consent authorising all of them to administer the estate. However, when the grant of letters of administration was issued on 10 March 2021 in Administration Cause No. 10 of 2021, the Applicant's name was omitted. The Respondents acknowledged the error and wrote to court on 29 March 2021 seeking rectification. The Applicant applied for review, also claiming that the Respondents had dealt with estate assets to her detriment and seeking orders for accounting and restoration.

Issues

  1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall and rectification of the grant of letters of administration to include the Applicant as co-administrator.
  2. Whether the court can order the Respondents to account for and restore estate assets allegedly dealt with by them in an application for review.

Orders

  • The grant of letters of administration in Administration Cause No. 10 of 2021 issued on 10 March 2021 is recalled for rectification.
  • The Applicant's name shall be added to the grant as one of the administrators.
  • A fresh grant shall be issued giving administrators authority to manage the estate of the late Sajjalyabene Mukasa to commence on the date of issuance of the fresh grant.
  • An inventory and account of the estate shall be filed within the court within six months from the date of receipt of the grant.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Court Orders — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Omission of Authorised Administrator from Grant
Where a person authorised by the Administrator General to obtain letters of administration is omitted from the grant issued by the court, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Review of Court Orders — Test for Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error is apparent on the face of the record only if it is manifest or self-evident and does not require a long drawn process of reasoning to establish. There is a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Letters of Administration — Persons Entitled to Grant — Joint Administration
The powers of administration under letters of administration must be exercised jointly by all persons to whom the grant is made, and such persons must be the same persons authorised by the Administrator General to be granted such powers.
Administration of Estates — Intermeddling — Dealings Under Erroneous Grant
Any dealings by administrators in the estate using a grant that contains an apparent error (such as omission of an authorised co-administrator) amounts to intermeddling in the estate.
Review of Court Orders — Scope of Relief — Accounting and Restitution Claims
Claims for accounting and restoration of estate assets allegedly misappropriated by administrators cannot be determined in an application for review and must be pursued in a separate suit for revocation of the grant of letters of administration.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K. Vyas vs Surart Borough Municipality &Ors (1953) Bom 133
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabukenya v Nalubega and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 218 (3 December 2021)
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.