Ssebagala Medi & 6 Others v Rev. Godfrey Buwembo (Miscellaneous Application 3059 of 2023)
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 High Court held that the respondent lacked locus standi to bring the main suit because he fraudulently misrepresented his relationship with the deceased. The respondent pleaded he was the son of the Late Kasule Paulo, but documentary evidence established his father was the Late Israel Kalule. The court found the respondent acted dishonestly by adopting different relationships with the deceased as suited his purposes, and dismissed the main suit for lack of standing.
Outcome
Main suit dismissed for lack of locus standi; applicants' counterclaim to proceed
Facts
The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 554 of 2018 claiming he was the son of the Late Kasule Paulo and seeking to evict the applicants from land registered in his name following his grant of letters of administration. He pleaded he was the deceased's son and administrator of the estate. The applicants filed a defence and counterclaim, asserting they were bonafide occupants who had settled on the land since the 1980s after purchasing it through intermediaries from the deceased. The applicants discovered through NIRA records, marriage certificates, and other official documents that the respondent's father was actually the Late Israel Kalule, not Kasule Paulo. In his affidavit in reply to this application, the respondent changed his claim and stated he was the deceased's nephew and paternal customary heir, contradicting his pleadings in the main suit and his application for letters of administration.
Issues
- Whether the respondent/plaintiff has locus standi to sue the applicants/defendants in respect to the estate of the Late Kasule Paulo.
Orders
- Application granted.
- Civil Suit No. 554 of 2018 dismissed.
- Declaration that the respondent is neither a son nor a beneficiary of the Late Kasule Paulo.
- Applicants' counterclaim under Civil Suit No. 554 of 2018 to be mentioned on a date to be fixed.
- Respondent to pay costs of the application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act s.64(e)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.7
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
- Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
Cases cited (7)
- Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
- Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
- Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Ltd & Others [2001] 1 EA 177
- Mukisa Biscuit v West End Distributors (1969) EA 696
- Struggle Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co Ltd (1990) ALR 46
- Jan Properties Ltd v Dar es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
- Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.