Wakilii

Suman Naresh Kara v Narottam Dharamsy Bhattia (Civil Appeal 26 of 96)

Court of Appeal · [1997] UGCA 17 · 1997 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court decision dismissing a suit concerning the grant of probate
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court found to have no jurisdiction to grant probate in the circumstances

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that although Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute confer unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court, that jurisdiction is exercised subject to other laws. Section 5(2) of the Succession Act provides that succession to movable property is regulated by the law of the testator's country of domicile. The Court rejected the argument that this provision governs only devolution rather than petition for grant, holding it covers petition, validity of wills and devolution. Since the deceased was domiciled in India, section 5(2) limited the High Court's jurisdiction to grant probate over the movable property (company shares) situated in Uganda.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court found to have no jurisdiction to grant probate in the circumstances

Facts

The appellant and respondent were sister and brother, children of Moraj Dharamsy Bhatia and his wife Manibhai Bhatia, who had lived in Uganda before moving to Bombay, India, in 1957. Among the properties left in Uganda were shares in a family company, Dharamsy Moraj Bhatia and Sons Ltd. After the death of both parents, the mother, Manibhai Bhatia, who died in Bombay in 1990, left a will appointing the appellant sole executrix and bequeathing a token of 2000 rupees to the respondent. The appellant applied in the High Court of Uganda for a grant of probate. The respondent lodged a caveat and later filed a defence and counterclaim challenging the will, contending that the testator was domiciled in India at death and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over her estate comprising movable company shares. The trial judge dismissed both the suit and counterclaim, finding the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant probate.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court of Uganda has jurisdiction to grant probate of a will made and executed outside Uganda relating to movable property situated in Uganda, where the testator was domiciled in another country at the time of death.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Decision of the trial Judge upheld on a different ground.

Rules and key headnotes

Succession & Estates — Grant of Probate — Jurisdiction where Testator Domiciled Abroad
Where a deceased was domiciled outside Uganda at the time of death, section 5(2) of the Succession Act limits the jurisdiction of the High Court so that it cannot grant probate of a will relating to movable property, since succession to such property is regulated by the law of the country of domicile.
Statutory Interpretation — Succession Act — Scope of 'Succession' to Movable Property
The regulation of succession to movable property by the law of domicile under section 5(2) of the Succession Act encompasses petition for grant of probate, validity of wills and devolution; there is no distinction in Uganda between administration and succession.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Ousting Unlimited Original Jurisdiction of the High Court
The unlimited original jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 139(1) of the Constitution and section 16(1) of the Judicature Statute is exercised subject to other laws, and a statute may oust that jurisdiction where it does so expressly or by irresistible inference.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • S.M.K.R. Nevanna Chetty vs N.S. Subramania Chetty a Privy Council decision (1916) AC 603
  • Ug. Lint. & Cattle Products -vs- The Co-operative Bank (U) Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 10/91 (Supreme Court of Uganda) unreported

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Suman Naresh Kara v Narottam Dharamsy Bhattia (Civil Appeal 26 of 96) [1997] UGCA 17 (5 February 1997)
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.