Wakilii

Sebina v Musoke and 3 Others (Civil Suit 59 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 226 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for nullification of land sale by joint administrator
Decision
Sale transactions nullified; property ordered to revert to estate; 2nd to 4th defendants ordered to vacate within 90 days

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

Held that a single administrator cannot convey estate land without the express consent of co-administrators. Section 272 of the Succession Act does not confer powers on a single administrator to singularly exercise powers vested in joint administrators with respect to conveyancing of land. The 2nd to 4th defendants were not bonafide purchasers as they had constructive notice that the land was registered in the names of two joint administrators and should have conducted proper due diligence. The sale transactions were nullified and the suit property ordered to revert to the estate.

Outcome

Sale transactions nullified; property ordered to revert to estate; 2nd to 4th defendants ordered to vacate within 90 days

Facts

The plaintiff and 1st defendant were appointed joint administrators of the estate of the late Katumba Bulasio under Administration Cause No. 254 of 2011. Without the plaintiff's consent, the 1st defendant sold portions of estate land (Block 236 Plot 99) to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants between 2014 and 2016. The 2nd to 4th defendants claimed they purchased the land in good faith, believing the 1st defendant was selling his beneficial interest from the estate. At the time of purchase, the land was registered in the names of both administrators and had a caveat on it. The 1st defendant admitted he sold the land without realizing he needed the co-administrator's consent and later attempted unsuccessfully to refund the purchasers. The estate had not been distributed to beneficiaries at the time of the sales.

Issues

  1. Whether the sale of the suit property by the 1st defendant to the 2nd to 4th defendants was lawful.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant had powers as a single administrator to singularly exercise powers vested in joint administrators with respect to selling land belonging to the estate without express consent of the co-administrator.
  3. Whether the 2nd to 4th defendants are bonafide purchasers for value without notice.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st defendant does not have powers to act singularly to sale the estate property.
  • An order nullifying the sale transactions between the 1st defendant and the 2nd to 4th defendants.
  • A declaration that the suit property reverts to the estate of the late Bulasio Katumba.
  • An order of eviction granted against the 2nd to 4th defendants to peacefully handover the suit land to the administrators of late Katumba Bulasio's estate within 90 days from the date of judgment.
  • No orders as to general damages.
  • No orders to mesne profits.
  • No orders for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Joint Administration — Powers of Single Administrator — Conveyancing Estate Land
Where letters of administration or probate are granted to more than one person, they must act together when dealing with all estate issues including sale and distribution. A single executor or administrator cannot convey land of a deceased person without the express consent or authority of co-executors or co-administrators. Section 272 of the Succession Act does not confer powers on a single administrator to singularly exercise powers vested in joint administrators with respect to conveyancing of land belonging to the estate.
Registration of Titles Act — Joint Representation — Concurrence Requirement
Under Section 134(3) of the Registration of Titles Act, if probate or administration is granted to more persons than one, all of them for the time being must join and concur in every instrument, surrender or discharge relating to land, lease or mortgage. Where executors or administrators jointly apply for probate or letters of administration and a grant is obtained simultaneously, they must act jointly at all times.
Sale of Undistributed Estate Property — Beneficial Interest
An administrator cannot sell his alleged beneficial interest in estate property before formal distribution of the estate. Where a will gives land to a beneficiary without marking specific boundaries, the administrator cannot unilaterally identify and sell portions of that land without proper distribution by all joint administrators identifying the specific parcel allocated.
Bonafide Purchaser for Value — Notice — Due Diligence
A purchaser who knows that land is part of an estate under administration has a duty to conduct due diligence to establish who the administrators are before completing the transaction. Where a land search reveals that land is registered in the names of two joint administrators, the purchaser has constructive notice that both administrators should participate in the sale and cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice by dealing with only one administrator.
Bonafide Purchaser — Burden of Proof — Deliberate Refusal to Obtain Information
The onus of establishing the plea of bonafide purchaser lies on the person who sets it up. A purchaser who deliberately chooses not to investigate who all the administrators are for purposes of dealing with all concerned cannot succeed in a claim of bonafide purchase. Deliberate refusal to find out information constitutes constructive notice.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Byaruhanga & Rudeja (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2014)
  • David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke [1992] KALR 736
  • Grace Asaba v Grace Kagaiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2014)
  • Obira & 6 Others v Okumu & Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2018)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebina_v_Musoke_and_3_Others_(Civil_Suit_59_of_2022)_[2024]_UGHCLD_226_(20_August_2024)
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.