Serwano Kulubya and Another v Nalumaga Nyaika (Civil Appeal 16 of 1998)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the deceased's letter of 25 May 1982 could not amount to a donatio mortis causa because that doctrine does not apply to immovable property under section 178(1) of the Succession Act. Nor did it constitute a valid gift inter vivos of the registered land: the letter was a mere letter, not a deed, and effected no delivery. Applying Macedo v Stroud and section 51 of the Registration of Titles Act, the court held that no instrument transfers any estate or interest in registered land unless it is registered. The letter merely indicated motive and communicated wishes. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit dismissed with costs; the disputed land remains part of the deceased's estate

Facts

In 1960 Sam Mugambe Kulubya made a will leaving Plot 15 Nakivubo Place (Kulubya House) to his son Edwin Kulubya. On 25 May 1982 he wrote a letter to the first appellant stating he had given the building to his daughter Margaret Nampiima in appreciation of her care during his illness. He died two months later; the appellants took out probate. In 1987 Nampiima lodged a caveat on the property. The Supreme Court, in an earlier appeal, held the letter was not a codicil. Nampiima died in 1992, and the respondent obtained letters of administration to her estate and sued the appellants, claiming the property had been gifted to her mother. The High Court agreed and declared the property not part of the deceased's estate. The subject matter was registered land, and no transfer instrument was ever registered.

Issues

1. Whether the letter of 25 May 1982 constituted a donatio mortis causa or a gift inter vivos of registered land to Margaret Nampiima.
2. Whether an unregistered instrument purporting to transfer registered land is effectual to pass any estate or interest in that land.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• The judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside.
• An order dismissing the suit with costs is substituted therefor.
• The appellants to have the costs of the appeal from the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Succession Act (Cap. 139) s.178(1)
• Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 205) s.51

Cases cited (9)

• Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 889
• Cain v Moon [1896] 2 QB 283
• Hawksby v Kane (1913) 47 ILT 95
• Re Swinburne, Sutton v Featherley [1926] Ch 38
• James v James (1859) 19 LT 809
• Cochrane v Moore (1890) 25 QBD 57
• Duffield v Elmes [1902] 1 Ch 580
• Macedo v Stroud [1922] 2 AC 330
• Kulubya v Nampiima (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1990)

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.

• Busonya & 2 Ors v Giruli [2018] UGSC 50
• Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v Sinba (K) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 12 of 2014)
• Bujara v Bujara (Civil Appeal 81 of 2002)

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