Ssebutemba Semu v Diiro Michael Kalega and Others (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2025)
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 overruled the preliminary objection raised by the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants. The court held that beneficiaries of an unadministered estate may validly contract with a third party to survey estate land and process titles where they act collectively and in the estate's interest. Where beneficiaries acknowledge a transaction and benefit from it, they cannot later deny its validity on grounds of lack of Letters of Administration. The principle of approbation and reprobation prevents parties from accepting benefits under a contract and then claiming it is void. The plaintiff was not an intermeddler as he acted pursuant to an agreement with the beneficiaries.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing on merits
Facts
The plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 18th September 2022 with the defendants, who were beneficiaries of the estate of Yakobo Sebigere. The defendants had held a meeting on 4th September 2022 and resolved to have the estate land surveyed and titles processed. They approached the plaintiff to undertake this work for a consideration of 13 acres of land. The estate's previous administrator, Kazibwe James, had died in February 2020, leaving the estate unadministered. The plaintiff performed the surveying work and incurred expenses of UGX 61,000,000. He caused a subdivision of the estate land and registered Plot 99 in the name of Kazibwe James. The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants then raised a preliminary objection claiming the agreement was illegal and void because neither party had capacity to contract in the absence of Letters of Administration. The 2nd and 4th defendants admitted the validity of the contract.
Issues
- Whether the agreement dated 18th September 2022 between the plaintiff and defendants was illegal and void for contravening Section 270(1) of the Succession Act.
- Whether the plaintiff had locus standi and a cause of action against the defendants.
- Whether the plaintiff's actions amounted to intermeddling in the estate of the deceased.
- Whether the consideration sought in the agreement was unlawful for being barred by law.
Orders
- Preliminary objection overruled.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
- Suit to be heard and determined on its merits.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
Cases cited (9)
- Sinaba (K) and Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
- Muyingo and 3 Others v Kakembo (High Court Land Division Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2022)
- Cornelius Mukiibi Sentamu v Lwandasa Samuel and Others (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2019)
- Patrick Bitature v ABSA Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2424 of 2023)
- Elim Pentecostal Church Ltd v Muwayi Luke Jamine and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 320 of 2021)
- Muzunduki Bob v Taija Holdings Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2024)
- Kapeke Coffee Works Ltd v Npart (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
- Mukisa Biscuit Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
- John Kihika and Another v Absolom Tinkamanyire (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.