Wakilii

Prince Kalemera & Another (Administrator of the estate of the Late H.R.H Sir Daudi Chwa II) v The Kabaka of Buganda & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 16 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by the 1st and 2nd defendants seeking to strike out the suit
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objections

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the suit on preliminary objections. The court held that the amended plaint was filed out of time; the plaintiffs lacked locus standi as they failed to produce letters of administration and the first plaintiff was a great-grandchild not qualifying as a lineal descendant; the plaint disclosed no cause of action as fraud was not properly pleaded against the defendants; and the suit was barred by the twelve-year limitation period which began running from 1939 when the deceased died, not 1993 when properties were returned to the Kingdom.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objections

Facts

The plaintiffs sued claiming property comprised in FC 18454 Kyadondo Block 273 measuring about 16 square miles belonged to the estate of the late Sir Daudi Chwa II (who died in 1939) and was wrongfully returned to and registered in the name of the 1st defendant (Kabaka of Buganda) in 1993. The suit was originally filed in 2017 in the Family Division and transferred to the Land Division. The plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to add parties and properties. The 1st plaintiff claimed to be the grandson (in fact great-grandchild) of the deceased and administrator of his father's estate. The 2nd plaintiff claimed to be a surviving administrator of Daudi Chwa II's estate but did not produce letters of administration. The defendants raised preliminary objections including that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, the plaint disclosed no cause of action, and the suit was barred by limitation. The certificates of title for the suit land dated back to 1924 with various leases issued thereafter.

Issues

  1. Whether the amended plaint was filed out of time contrary to the court order
  2. Whether the removal of the second plaintiff from the amended plaint without court direction was regular
  3. Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the suit without letters of administration
  4. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd defendants
  5. Whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised by the 1st and 2nd defendants are upheld.
  • Leave is granted to the second plaintiff (Prince David Namugala Mawanda) to withdraw from the proceedings.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Letters of Administration — Requirement to Establish Right to Estate Property
Section 191 of the Succession Act provides that no right to any part of the property of a person who has died intestate shall be established in any court unless letters of administration have first been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction. This section negates locus standi to claim for property of an intestate until letters of administration have been granted in respect of such estate.
Locus Standi — Lineal Descendants — Definition and Scope
Section 2(b) of the Succession Act defines 'lineal descendants' to include legitimate, illegitimate and adopted children, but does not include grandchildren. Section 86(d) provides that 'grandchildren' applies only to lineal descendants in the second degree. A great-grandchild does not qualify as a lineal descendant for purposes of establishing locus standi to sue in respect of an intestate estate.
Beneficiaries' Right to Protect Estate Property Without Letters of Administration
A beneficiary of an estate as prescribed under section 27 of the Succession Act, including lineal descendants, has locus standi to institute legal proceedings for purposes of protecting or preserving an estate without first obtaining letters of administration, where the beneficiary has a direct interest in protecting the estate property.
Time Limits — Filing Documents After Court Order — Exclusion of Days
Under Order 51 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sundays, Christmas, Good Friday and public holidays are excluded in computation of time only where the limited time is less than six days. Where a court directs that an action be taken within a period exceeding six days, these days are not excluded. Where the last day for doing an act falls on a day when court offices are closed, Order 51 rule 3 allows the act to be done on the next day the offices are open.
Fraud — Requirements for Pleading Against Registered Proprietor
Fraud must be attributable to the transferee either directly or by necessary implication. The transferee must be guilty of some fraudulent act or must have known of such acts by somebody else and taken advantage of it. A plaintiff seeking to set aside a registered proprietor's title on grounds of fraud must plead specifically how the registered proprietor was responsible for or participated in the fraud.
Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Commencement of Limitation Period
Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, no action shall be brought to recover land after twelve years from the date the right of action accrued. The right to recover an estate starts running from the date of death of the intestate and remains available for twelve years. Where a deceased person did not challenge a registered proprietorship during his lifetime, his descendants cannot claim a superior right of standing to challenge that proprietorship decades later.
Limitation — Fraud Exception — Requirements for Invoking Extended Period
The exception for fraud under section 25 of the Limitation Act requires a plaintiff to plead and prove when they became aware of the fraud and how the defendant was involved in the fraud. Fraud cannot be invoked merely to circumvent limitation where the registered proprietorship was obtained through lawful statutory vesting and registration.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (6)

  • Faridah Nantale v Attorney General & 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 97 of 2011)
  • Israel Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Fredrick James Jjungu & Another v Mandhvani Group Ltd & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 508 of 2014)
  • Swaleh Bin Nasiri Vs Salim Bin Swaleh BinHussein {1960} 1 EA 426
  • MA-278-2015 between Kabaka ofBuganda Vs Wameli & Co. Advocates

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prince_Kalemera_&_Another_(Administrator_of_the_estate_of_the_Late_H.R.H_Sir_Daudi_Chwa_II)_v_The_Kabaka_of_Buganda_&_3_Others_(Civil_Suit_No._535_of_2017)_[2020]_UGHCLD_16_(28_Sep
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.