Wakilii

Prince Mpuga Rukidi and Another v Prince Iguru Solomon (Civil Appeal 18 of 1994)

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 35 · 1996 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court dismissal of a suit concerning entitlement to succeed to the throne of the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the trial court's finding that Prince Iguru qualified to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara upheld, but the costs order varied so that each party bears its own costs.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal save as to costs. It held that under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution all sons of the Omukama, legitimate or not, qualify as members of the Royal Family, so the first respondent's eligibility was unaffected by an alleged incestuous birth, which was in any event not proved. The late Omukama's Will (Exh. D.4) was properly admitted as secondary evidence of a lost original and, even if invalid as a Will, was a valid nomination requiring no prescribed form or witnessing. The right to succeed was an acquired right surviving abolition of kingdoms and restored by the 1993 amendment. On costs the appeal succeeded, each party bearing its own.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the trial court's finding that Prince Iguru qualified to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara upheld, but the costs order varied so that each party bears its own costs.

Facts

The appellant, the first-born son of the late Omukama Sir Tito Gafabusa Winyi IV of Bunyoro-Kitara by his wedded wife (the Omugo), sued to be declared the rightful heir to the throne and to restrain the first respondent, Prince Solomon Iguru, from claiming succession. Iguru was an accepted son of the late Omukama by another woman, Gertrude. The appellant alleged Iguru was born of an incestuous relationship and so disqualified, and that only children of the official wedded wife could succeed under Bunyoro custom. The respondents relied on a written document dated 22 October 1962 (Exh. D.4), said to be the late Omukama's Will nominating Iguru, on the installation of Iguru as heir, and on resolutions of the Hoima and Masindi Resistance Councils and a coronation committee accepting Iguru as Omukama. Iguru had since been enthroned. The Kingdom had been abolished in 1967 and the institution of traditional rulers restored by the Constitution (Amendment) Statute 1993.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in framing only one issue and in declining to make declarations as to the appellant's status.
  2. Whether the first respondent, Prince Iguru, was a member of the Royal Family and qualified to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara.
  3. Whether the late Omukama's Will (Exh. D.4) was properly admitted in evidence and constituted a valid nomination of a successor.
  4. Whether the first respondent's right to succeed lapsed on the abolition of the institution of traditional rulers or was preserved as an acquired right.
  5. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs against the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save as to costs.
  • Order of the lower court granting the respondents the costs of the suit set aside.
  • Each party to bear its own costs, both in the Supreme Court and in the court below.
  • The other orders of the trial judge upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Framing of Issues — Timing and effect of failure to frame additional issues
Under Order 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules issues must ordinarily be framed at the commencement of the hearing, not at the close of submissions, though a court retains discretion to amend or add issues at any time before judgment; an omission to frame an additional issue does not vitiate the decision where no prejudice or failure of justice results.
Succession & Estates — Royal Succession — Membership of the Royal Family of Bunyoro
For the purpose of succession to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara, the Royal Family under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution comprises all sons of the Omukama and the direct male descendants of Omukama Kabalega, without distinction between sons of the official wedded wife and other sons; legitimacy is immaterial to eligibility.
Evidence — Secondary Evidence — Admission of a copy of a lost original document
A photocopy of a document may be admitted as secondary evidence under section 63 of the Evidence Act where it is proved that the original existed, has been lost and cannot be found, and that the copy accurately reproduces the original; the person who made the copy need not be called to testify.
Succession & Estates — Nomination of Successor — No prescribed form
A nomination of a successor to the Omukama under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution requires no prescribed form and may be made orally or in writing and need not be witnessed; accordingly a document failing as a formal Will may nonetheless operate as a valid nomination.
Statutory Interpretation — Repeal — Preservation of acquired rights
The repeal of an enactment does not revive anything not in force at the time the repeal takes effect, but a right validly acquired before abolition is preserved; a right of succession validly conferred before the 1967 abolition of kingdoms vested on the death of the nominator and survived the abolition by virtue of section 15 of the Interpretation Act.
Constitutional Law — Declaratory Relief — Appeal not overtaken by intervening events
An appeal is not rendered moot or beyond the court's jurisdiction merely because the disputed status has been assumed in the interim, such as by a coronation; a party may pursue its rights despite intervening events and the court remains entitled to pronounce on the rights of the parties, the grant of a declaration being discretionary.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to depart from the general rule
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may for good reason order otherwise; the public importance of a dispute and the need for reconciliation between the parties may justify ordering each party to bear its own costs even though one party succeeded.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons, ex parte Matovu [1966] EA 514
  • Opolot v Attorney General [1969] EA 631
  • Andrew Lutakome Kayiira v Edward Rugumayo (Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1979)
  • Fam International Ltd v Mohamed Hamid El Fatih
  • Sram Bugu vs Public Service Commission (1972) EA 296

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prince Mpuga Rukidi and Another v Prince Iguru Solomon (Civil Appeal 18 of 1994) [1996] UGSC 35 (17 May 1996)
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.