Willy Mayanja v Richard Maseruka and 7 Others [2026] UGHCLD 32
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 declined to appoint the applicant's nominee as administrator pendente lite of a deceased person's estate for the purpose of representing the estate in a pending land fraud suit. Although section 218 of the Succession Act permits a grant limited to representing a deceased in a pending suit where the executor or person entitled to administration is unable or unwilling to act, the applicant's affidavit evidence disclosed no nexus or relationship between the nominee and the estate of the deceased. The deceased was also not a party to the pending suit. The application to appoint the nominee, to add him as a party and to amend the plaint was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Outcome
Application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite and for addition of a party to Civil Suit No. 725 of 2018 dismissed; head suit continues as constituted
Facts
The applicant had filed High Court Civil Suit No. 725 of 2018 against the 1st to 7th Respondents concerning 1.5 acres of kibanja on mailo land at Kijabijo, formerly part of Kyadondo Block 170 Plot 600, which he claimed to have purchased from the 1st to 4th Respondents. He alleged that before subdivision was completed into Plots 1070 and 1071, the late Fred Kiwanuka together with the 5th and 6th Respondents carried out fraudulent transactions, resulting in Plot 1070 being registered in the deceased's name and Plot 1071 in the 6th Respondent's name. The estate of the late Fred Kiwanuka had no administrator, and neither the deceased nor the 8th Respondent was a party to the pending suit. The applicant sought appointment of the 8th Respondent as administrator pendente lite so the estate could be represented, that he be joined as a defendant, and leave to amend the plaint. The 5th and 7th Respondents opposed, contending the 8th Respondent was neither executor nor a person entitled to administer the estate, that no necessity had been shown, and that the amendment would prejudice them and alter the structure of the suit.
Issues
- Whether the court should grant letters of administration pendente lite in respect of the estate of the late Fred Kiwanuka to the 8th Respondent.
- Whether the 8th Respondent could be added as a party to Civil Suit No. 725 of 2018 as legal representative of the deceased.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Succession Act Cap 268 s.214
- Succession Act Cap 268 s.218
- Succession Act Cap 268 s.220
- Succession Act Cap 268 s.222
- Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1, 2 and 3
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.