Wakilii

Ssekibenga Muhamad v Kibirige Isaac and Others [2026] UGHC 739

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for an order of exhumation and DNA testing to resolve a paternity dispute affecting entitlement to an estate
Decision
Application granted; exhumation and DNA testing authorised with results to be filed within 30 days

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 its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 37 of the Judicature Act permit an order for exhumation and DNA testing, but only on sufficient cause, in good faith and as a last resort, the right to undisturbed sepulture being weighed against the need for a just determination. Sufficient cause was shown: paternity was central to distribution of the estate, the applicant produced prima facie marriage and baptism records, the respondents relied only on family meeting minutes and an LC1 letter which are not probative of biological ties, family meetings had failed and all direct parties were deceased. Application granted; each party to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Application granted; exhumation and DNA testing authorised with results to be filed within 30 days

Facts

The first and second respondents claimed to be children of the late Kawooya Samuel and the third respondent a child of the late Kabuye Matia, both of whom the respondents said were sons of the late Musa Sabakaki by the late Kevina Najjuma. The applicant, a beneficiary of the estate of the late Musa Sabakaki, disputed this. He relied on a certified 1945 marriage certificate showing Kevina Najjuma's marriage to Benedicto Kalungi, baptism records from Nadangira Catholic Parish listing Kawooya Samuel and Kabuye Matia as children of that marriage, and a declaration confirming the lineage; Benedicto Kalungi was said to be a nephew of Musa Sabakaki, so that the respondents were not his descendants. Family meetings convened by the Town Clerk, the Chief Administrative Officer of Wakiso District and the Administrator General failed to resolve the dispute, and the parties were advised to go to court. The respondents relied on meeting minutes, a Certificate of No Objection and an LC1 letter, alleged the applicant lacked locus standi and had intermeddled with estate land, and said the applicant's documents were doctored. All persons whose paternity was in question were deceased.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient cause to grant an order for the exhumation of the remains of the late Musa Sabakaki, Kawooya Samuel and Kabuye Matia for DNA testing to resolve a paternity dispute.
  2. Whether the applicant was entitled to the costs of the application.

Orders

  • Leave granted for the exhumation of the remains of the late Musa Sabakaki, Kawooya Samuel and Kabuye Matia from Lutisi Cell, Namayumba Town Council, Wakiso District, for DNA testing to determine paternity.
  • The exhumation and DNA testing shall be conducted by the Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory.
  • The process of exhumation and paternity testing shall be monitored by all the parties and their respective counsel.
  • The results shall be submitted to court within 30 days of the ruling.
  • The costs of the exhumation and paternity test shall be met by the estate of the late Musa Sabakaki.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Succession & Estates — Disputed Paternity of Alleged Beneficiaries — Exhumation for DNA Testing
Where paternity is central to determining who is entitled to inherit from an estate and the persons concerned are deceased, the High Court may order exhumation of the remains for DNA testing as a measure of last resort in order to identify the rightful beneficiaries.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act and Section 37 Judicature Act
The inherent powers conferred by section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 37 of the Judicature Act enable the court to make any order necessary for the ends of justice, but those powers must not be used to permit an abuse of the process of court and must be exercised after balancing the competing interests of the parties.
Family Law — DNA Testing — Requirement of Good Faith and Sufficient Cause
An order for exhumation and DNA testing is a drastic measure that will not be granted lightly; the applicant must show sufficient cause, that the application is made in good faith and not designed to exploit, embarrass or delay, and that no reasonable alternative means of resolving the dispute exists, the right to undisturbed sepulture being weighed in the balance.
Evidence — Burden of Proof under Section 101 Evidence Act — Proof of Biological Descent
A party asserting paternity bears the burden of proving it under section 101 of the Evidence Act, and family meeting minutes, an LC1 letter or a Certificate of No Objection are not probative of biological ties; a mere allegation that certified documents are doctored, unsupported by counter-evidence, does not displace prima facie documentary proof.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Depart from the Rule that Costs Follow the Event
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may in its discretion decline to award costs to a successful party in a family dispute in order to avoid further acrimony between the parties.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Komaketch Walter v Dr Okot Christopher (Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2018)
  • Mpumwire Magambo v Amanda Magambo (Miscellaneous Application No. 293 of 2023)
  • Nassimbwa Rose v Kibugo David (Miscellaneous Application No. 317 of 2024)
  • Sserunjogi Charles Musoke and Another v Tony Nkuubi (Originating Summons No. 7 of 2019)
  • MW v. KC Kakamega High Court Misc. Application No. 105 of 2004
  • Tendo Sunitah v Annet Tumwebaze Mugasha (Miscellaneous Application No. 957 of 2023)
  • Gasa Zoe Atara v Moreen Namara Kalema (Miscellaneous Application No. 1205 of 2023)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekibenga Muhamad v Kibirige Isaac and Others [2026] UGHC 739 (8 June 2026)
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.