Sendege v Nanono & Another (Miscellaneous Application 24 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
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 dismissed the application seeking appointment of the deceased judgment debtor's daughters as administratrix for purposes of executing a decree. While section 222 of the Succession Act permits such appointments, the court held that it could not grant Letters of Administration to a nominee who expressly stated unwillingness and inability to act, who had no knowledge of the suit against the deceased, and where the applicant failed to prove the existence of estate property to be administered for execution purposes.
Outcome
Application dismissed — applicant may pursue appropriate procedure through the Administrator General if estate exists
Facts
The applicant obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 76 of 2012 against Monica Nansubuga on 13 December 2016. Before execution could commence, the judgment debtor passed away. The applicant sought appointment of the deceased's two daughters as administratrix of her estate for purposes of completing execution of the decree. The first respondent confirmed she was the deceased's daughter but stated the deceased had distributed all her property before death, that she had no knowledge of any suit against her mother, and that she was unwilling and unable to act as administrator due to ill health. The second respondent made no response to the application. The applicant failed to prove the existence of any estate property available for administration.
Issues
- Whether Nanono Anamaria and Nowe Nabyonga Betty can be appointed administratrix of the estate of the late Monica Nansubuga who was the defendant/judgment debtor in Civil Suit No. 76 of 2012, for purposes of completing the case by way of execution of the decree arising there from
- Whether the costs of the application should be provided for
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (3)
- Kalumba Benjamin & Another v Kakira Sugar Works & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 4611 of 2014)
- Copper v Smith [1884] 26 CHD 700
- Attorney General & Another v James Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.