Wakilii

Ssebina and 5 Others v Pearl Development Group Limited and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause 145 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 453 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex-parte application for limited letters of administration to enable applicants to prosecute a pending civil suit
Decision
Letters of administration ad litem granted limited to prosecution of Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019

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 letters of administration limited to Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019 may be granted under section 222 of the Succession Act where applicants hold a certificate of no objection to the deceased's estate, are beneficiaries with locus standi in a pending suit, and the full grant process is caveated and unlikely to complete before the next hearing. The grant is limited solely to prosecuting the specified suit until further representation.

Outcome

Letters of administration ad litem granted limited to prosecution of Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019

Facts

The applicants hold a certificate of no objection to the estate of the late Israel Ssentongo Sewagaba. They are plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019 pending before the High Court. When they applied for full letters of administration in Administration Cause No. 223 of 2017, that application was caveated by Mr. Daniel Wasajja Ssewagaba. The applicants then instituted Civil Suit No. 005 of 2018 challenging the caveat, which suit remains pending. To establish locus standi in Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019, the applicants brought this ex-parte application for letters of administration limited to that suit under section 222 of the Succession Act.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the grant of letters of administration limited to the suit to the applicants?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Letters of administration limited to Civil Suit No. 927 of 2019 are granted to the applicants for purposes of proceeding with the suit only until further representation.
  • Application succeeds.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Succession & Estates — Letters of Administration — Grant of Limited Letters — Application under Section 222 Succession Act
Where it is necessary that the representative of a deceased person be made a party to a pending suit and the executor or person entitled to administration is unable or unwilling to act, letters of administration may be granted limited for the purpose of representing the deceased in that suit under section 222 of the Succession Act.
Succession & Estates — Letters of Administration — Limited Grant — Powers and Scope
A grant of letters of administration limited to a suit is made only for the purpose of filing, prosecuting or defending that suit, with no powers conferred on the grantee to distribute or otherwise deal with the estate under the grant.
Succession & Estates — Letters of Administration — Limited Grant — Application Even Without Pending Suit
Section 222 of the Succession Act may be invoked to appoint a personal representative even when there is no pending suit at the time of the application.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Representation of Deceased's Estate
Where applicants hold a certificate of no objection to a deceased's estate, are beneficiaries interested in the outcome, have instituted a pending suit but cannot obtain full letters of administration in time due to a caveat, the court may grant limited letters of administration ad litem to preserve the deceased's interest and enable prosecution of the suit.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Okway John Kimbo v Oddia Nuru and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0039 of 2016)
  • Hadija v Iddi (1974) EA 50

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssebina_and_5_Others_v_Pearl_Development_Group_Limited_and_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Cause_145_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_453_(5_November_2023)
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.