Wakilii

Ssalongo Muwanga v Ssebagala (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 578 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 116 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from Civil Suit No. 3108 of 2016 seeking substitution of deceased defendant and grant of letters of administration ad litem
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant advised to pursue alternative remedies through probate process or Administrator General

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 court held that a person cannot be compelled to act as administrator ad litem of a deceased's estate where they are unwilling to do so. The application for substitution of the deceased defendant and grant of letters of administration ad litem limited to the respondent was dismissed. The court advised the applicant to liaise with the respondent on the ongoing probate process or alternatively to move the Administrator General to apply for letters of administration under Section 4(3)(d) of the Administrator General's Act.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant advised to pursue alternative remedies through probate process or Administrator General

Facts

The applicant brought a miscellaneous application arising from Civil Suit No. 3108 of 2016 seeking to substitute the respondent as defendant in place of his late father Al Hajji Nasser Ntege Sebagala who died on 26 September 2020 before disposal of the main suit. The applicant sought an order for the respondent to be granted letters of administration ad litem limited to defending the suit. The defendant's counsel had informed court in November 2020 of the death and that there was no legal representative. The applicant discovered the respondent was a child and heir of the deceased. The respondent opposed the application, stating he was not the heir as his father left a will, that the process for grant of probate had commenced though delayed due to executors and beneficiaries residing in different countries, and that he was unwilling to act as administrator ad litem. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the validity of the supporting affidavit deposed by one of three joint holders of power of attorney.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application was properly authorised by the power of attorney
  2. Whether the applicant had established grounds for the court to grant letters of administration ad litem under Section 222 of the Succession Act
  3. Whether the respondent could be compelled to act as administrator ad litem for the deceased defendant

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Powers of Attorney — Joint Appointment — Authority of Individual Donee to Depone Affidavit
Where a power of attorney appoints three persons jointly as attorneys without an express provision requiring them to always act jointly, an individual donee has authority to depone an affidavit in support of an application without the other donees where the facts deposed are within her knowledge.
Letters of Administration Ad Litem — Unwillingness of Nominee — Section 222 Succession Act
Under Section 222 of the Succession Act, a person cannot be compelled to act as administrator ad litem of a deceased person's estate where they are unwilling to do so, even if they are a child and heir of the deceased.
Letters of Administration Ad Litem — Preconditions for Grant — Section 222 Succession Act
For a court to grant letters of administration ad litem under Section 222 of the Succession Act, it must be established that the executor or person entitled to administration is unable or unwilling to act, and owing to special circumstances the urgency is so great that it would not be possible to make a full grant in sufficient time.
Abatement — Death of Defendant — Order 24 Rule 4(3) CPR
Where a defendant dies during the pendency of a suit and no application for substitution is made within the time limited by law, the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant under Order 24 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Fredrick Zzabwe v Orient Bank Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Okway John Kimbo v Oddi Nuru and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 31 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssalongo_Muwanga_v_Ssebagala_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._578_of_2021)_[2021]_UGHCLD_116_(30_August_2021)
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.