Wakilii

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

Supreme Court · [1996] UGSC 34 · 1996 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the High Court dismissal of a suit seeking declarations as to the rightful successor to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the trial court's finding that Prince Iguru qualified to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara upheld, with the costs order varied to each party bearing 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. It held that under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution the Royal Family included all sons of the Omukama, legitimate or not, so the first respondent — accepted as a son of the late Omukama — qualified for nomination regardless of any incest allegation. The late Omukama's document (Exh. D.4) was properly admitted as secondary evidence and was a valid nomination not requiring witnessing. The nomination was an acquired right that survived the 1967 abolition of kingdoms and was confirmed by the 1993 restoration. The Court varied only the costs order, directing each party to bear its own costs here and below.

Outcome

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

Facts

The appellant, the first and eldest son of the late Omukama Sir Tito Gafabusa Winyi IV by his wedded wife (Omugo), claimed to be the rightful Crown Prince entitled to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara. He sued to restrain the first respondent, Prince Solomon Iguru — another son of the late Omukama, born of Gertrude Komuntu — from claiming to be a member of the Royal Family or successor. The second respondents formed a committee that prepared Prince Iguru's coronation. The appellant alleged Iguru was the product of an incestuous union and so disqualified, and that only children of the wedded wife could succeed. The respondents relied on a written document dated 22 October 1962 (Exh. D.4) by which the late Omukama nominated Iguru as successor, on installation rites performed at the funeral, and on recognition by Bunyoro institutions. The Kingdom had been abolished in 1967 and restored by the 1993 constitutional amendment, after which District Resistance Councils and a coronation committee endorsed Iguru, who was enthroned.

Issues

  1. Whether the first respondent, Prince Iguru, was a member of the Royal Family and entitled to succeed to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara.
  2. Whether the late Omukama's document (Exhibit D.4) was properly admitted in evidence and constituted a valid will or instrument of nomination of a successor.
  3. Whether Prince Iguru's nomination as successor survived the 1967 abolition of Traditional Rulers and was restored by the Constitution (Amendment) Statute 1993.
  4. Whether the trial Judge erred in framing only one issue and in declining to make declarations on the status of the appellant.
  5. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding costs against the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save as regards costs.
  • Order of the lower court granting the respondents 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 are upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Succession to Traditional Office — Bunyoro-Kitara Throne — Composition of the Royal Family
Under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution the Royal Family of Bunyoro for the purpose of succession comprises all the children and direct male descendants of the late Omukama (and of Omukama Kabalega), and any son of the Omukama, whether legitimate or not, is eligible for nomination as successor.
Nomination of Successor — Form — Instrument Need Not Be Witnessed
Where no specific form is prescribed for nomination of a successor under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule, the nomination may be made orally or in writing and need not be witnessed; an unattested document made by an African may operate as a valid nomination even if it does not satisfy the formalities of a will.
Secondary Evidence — Admission of Photocopy of Lost Original under Evidence Act s.63
A photocopy of a lost original document is admissible as secondary evidence where it is proved that the original cannot be found and the copy accurately reproduces it; the fact that the person who made the copy was not called to testify does not render its admission erroneous.
Acquired Rights — Survival of Nomination Despite Abolition and Restoration of Kingdoms
A right acquired by valid nomination to a traditional office before the 1967 abolition of kingdoms vests on the death of the nominator and subsists despite the abolition; section 15 of the Interpretation Act preserves such a right, and the 1993 constitutional restoration of Traditional Rulers does not operate retrospectively to extinguish it.
Framing of Issues — Timing under Order 13 Civil Procedure Rules
Issues should be framed at the commencement of the hearing of the suit after reading the pleadings, and not after the close of submissions; a trial Judge nonetheless retains discretion to amend or add issues at any time before judgment, and an omission to frame additional issues that occasions no prejudice does not vitiate the decision.
Costs — Departure from Costs-Follow-the-Event Rule in Cases of Public Importance
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may for good reason depart from the rule; where a dispute is of great public importance and reconciliation between the parties is desirable, it may order each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons ex parte Matovu [1966] EA 514
  • Andrew Lutakome Kayiira and Paul Ssemogerere ... Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1979 (unreported)
  • Fam International Ltd v Mohamed Hamid El Fatih
  • Opolot v Attorney General (1969) EA 631
  • Andrew Lutakome Kayiira and Another vs Edward Rugumayo & 22 others Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1979
  • Bram Bugu v 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 34 (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.