Tumwine v Mujuni & Another (Originating Summons 2 of 2018)
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
Court dismissed the application, holding that the matters raised required a full hearing with witnesses rather than determination by originating summons. The applicant failed to show that a citation had been issued against the surviving widows as required by the Succession Act before other relatives could be appointed administrators. The court cannot order the Administrator General to favour particular beneficiaries over others including widows without proper procedure.
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant advised to pursue matter by formal suit
Facts
Tumwine Asaph, a beneficiary of the estate of Sezi Rwampunu who died around 1980, filed an application seeking court direction for the Administrator General to issue a certificate of no objection to him and Joseph Mugume as administrators of the estate. The deceased was survived by three widows and sixteen children. A file had been opened with the Administrator General in 2009. The applicant alleged that the 1st respondent, Mujuni Stender, had engineered family disagreements in all family meetings and assumed office of administrator without lawful authority. The Administrator General deposed that on several occasions she had conducted mediation meetings with the family but they failed to agree on who should be granted a certificate of no objection. The Administrator General also engaged local government and police authorities to mediate but the parties still failed to agree.
Issues
- Whether the court should order the Administrator General to disregard the 1st Respondent's blockage of family meetings and issue a certificate of no objection to the Applicant and Joseph Mugume.
- Whether the court should order the 1st Respondent to account for revenue collected from the estate during alleged intermeddling.
- Whether originating summons was the appropriate procedure for this application.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Applicant advised to pursue the matter by formal suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 Rule 1(f)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 Rule 1(h)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
- Administrator General's Act Cap 157 s.5
- Administrator General's Act Cap 157 s.4
- Administrator General's Act Cap 157 s.4(5)(a)
- Succession Act Cap 162 s.202
- Succession Act Cap 162 s.203
- Succession Act Cap 162 s.27
Cases cited (6)
- Zalwango Eliverson and Another v Dorothy Walusimbi and Another (Originating Summons No. 3 of 2013)
- Kaggwa and Others v Yowana Kiwanuka [1993] 3 KALR 17
- Kulusumbai v Abdul Hussein [1975] EA 708
- E Nakabugo v Francis Drake Serunjogi [1981] HCB 58
- Bulasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
- Administrator General v Akello Joyce Otti & Donato Otti (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1993)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.