Lawpoint Uganda

While the Respondent bore most of the development burden, the Court held that equity required recognition of the Appellant’s contributions and long-term cohabitation. The Court determined that the Appellant was entitled to a proportionate share of the property to prevent him from leaving “empty-handed,” even if he did not directly fund most of the developments.

An executrix who has received a grant of probate under the Succession Act, Cap. 268, cannot wholesale delegate her statutory mandate to a third party through a power of attorney. The Court found that such a delegation was a legal nullity, and that the donee (Julius Peter Ochen), having no legal or beneficial interest in the estate, lacked the requisite locus standi to sue on its behalf.

a spouse is a qualified relative under Section 61(1) of the Act, and may be appointed as a personal representative of a person judicially declared to have mental illness. This is especially pertinent in situations where no prior arrangements—such as a power of attorney—have been made.

Possession and long-term occupancy do not translate into lawful ownership in the absence of formal legal authority or distribution of the estate.

A change from Catholicism to Pentecostalism does not, in the eyes of the law, constitute a change of religion within the meaning of Section 4(b) of the Marriage and Divorce Act. Both are professions of Christianity.

Drawing from the influential Canadian case of Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia,[2] the Court stated that equality is not synonymous with uniformity. The legal frameworks governing civil and customary marriages are not interchangeable; they are distinct regimes grounded in different legal and social philosophies. To apply the same criminal sanctions to both would be to ignore these foundational differences.

The court concluded that, although the exact monetary contributions could not be established with certainty, the evidence showed a shared intention and effort to establish a joint home.

Worse still, Section 26 of the Succession Act treats separation more harshly than even divorce. Under current law, a woman who is estranged but still legally married may be disinherited, while a divorced spouse may receive a more favourable legal assessment. This inconsistency entrenches patriarchal assumptions about a woman’s worth being tied solely to her marital status.

The Court emphasised that the suit land is part of the intestate estate. Rights of occupation and eventual inheritance are governed by Sections 22(1) and (3) of the Succession Act. The Court further added that no party can claim ownership or exclusive rights absent a formal grant of letters of administration.

The Court emphasized that “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift,” but in this case, possession and development by the Respondent amounted to effective delivery and acceptance.

The Court reaffirmed that a widow cannot legally dispose of property belonging to an intestate deceased spouse without obtaining letters of administration, citing Section 187 of the Succession Act, Cap 268. This principle was emphasized in Lwanyikirira v Administrator General, Misc. Appl. No. 2298 of 2024 where failure to take out letters of administration barred claims over unregistered land.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Silver Byaruhanga v. Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Anor, SCCA No. 09 of 2014, the Court reaffirmed that joint administration requires joint action unless the administrators were appointed at different times.

The Court warned against third parties – including schools and even courts – confusing parental disputes (such as divorce) with the legal rights of children. It emphasized that economic hardship or parental separation does not justify undermining a parent’s constitutional rights to raise and care for their child.

Citing Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Court emphasized that failure to perform “any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed”, including filing submissions, can result in the Court proceeding without considering the defaulting party’s input.

The Court should therefore exercise caution before issuing such orders. However, when certain circumstances arise and make it desirable and imperative that a body be exhumed, the court will not unnecessarily fetter its discretion but will order such exhumation to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, I have come to believe that it is in the best interest of all the parties that the paternity test is conducted through exhumation of the remains of the late Nsereko Geor

The High Court clarified that a person administering an estate must first register land in their representative capacity before transferring it into their name; failure to do so is irregular and may be contested. Also, claims grounded in customary inheritance must demonstrate the existence and application of specific customs, not merely invoke cultural norms.

The Court asserted that the framers of the Act deliberately imposed strict timelines that must be adhered to. While recognising that courts are empowered under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, she stressed that this discretion must not be used to undermine the clear intent of statutory deadlines.

While the Court acknowledged Article 41 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Access to Information Act, it emphasized that access to such information is governed by clear procedures set out in the Act. These include submitting a formal written request to the relevant information officer and, where access is denied, appealing first to the Chief Magistrate's Court under section 36 of the Access to Information Act.

If suspicions arise surrounding the execution of a will, the court will apply the judicial conscience test to determine its validity. This involves assessing the testator's understanding of the will's content, consequences, and effect, as well as their mental soundness and free will at the time of execution.h

Despite establishing that Ms. Katende suffers from mental illness, the application was dismissed due to failure to prove the other two essential grounds. Applications under the Mental Health Act for management of the affairs of persons with mental illness must be supported by: Conclusive medical evidence, Proof of entitlement or legal interest in the subject’s estate, and Evidence of fitness and integrity of the applicants.

Under Section 242(e) of the Succession Act, Cap. 268 imposes a clear duty: An application for letters of administration shall state the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner’s hands. The court emphasised that this provision demands full disclosure of all known assets by the applicant at the time of petitioning. The intent is to streamline the administration of the estate and avoid fragmented or conflicting grants. Crucially, deliberate concealment may am

The High Court held that the Applicants had no legal capacity to sue over the suit land because they had not obtained letters of administration for the estate of the late Musa Musoke Kiwumumpu, whose interests they purported to represent. Citing section 187 of the Succession Act, the Court emphasized that no right to a deceased’s property can be established in court without first obtaining letters of administration.

Under Section 30 of the Succession Act, which has now been revised as Section 26 of the Succession Act Cap 268 as amended, a spouse who is no longer a member of the deceased’s household is disqualified from inheriting intestate. The Court endorsed the interpretation in Elizabeth Nalumansi v. Jolly Kasande, S.C.C.A No. 10 of 2015, which treats separation as a factual, not merely legal issue. Named beneficiaries in a will are protected, regardless of biological or legal rela

A valid gift requires intention, delivery, and acceptance. The law in Uganda does not require such a gift to be in writing, although written documentation provides evidentiary certainty