An administrator who filed a suit while the grant was still valid retains locus standi to pursue all consequential proceedings, including appeals, notwithstanding the later expiry of the letters.

Waboga David
Dec 5, 2025
7 min read

The High Court at Mbale has clarified that, although letters of administration expire after two years, any suit instituted within their valid lifespan remains properly before the court. An administrator who filed a suit while the grant was still valid retains locus standi to pursue all consequential proceedings, including appeals, notwithstanding the later expiry of the letters.

FACTS

In 1992, the Appellant's late father, John Wabusera, purchased a plot of land from the late Saidi Maluti (father of the 1st Respondent and father-in-law of the 2nd Respondent) for UGX 400,000. An initial payment of UGX 250,000 was made, with the balance cleared later through a law firm.

A purchase agreement (PEX.1) was executed, but it did not specify the land's dimensions or boundaries, only noting that it included a lodge building that encroached on Wabusera's existing plot after a survey.

Following Wabusera's death, the Appellant (as administrator of the estate) claimed the Respondents unlawfully trespassed on the suit land (measuring approximately 50 ft by 30 ft) around 2012–2020, fencing it, constructing a permanent residential house, and occupying it without consent.

The Appellant reported the matter to the police, who advised filing a civil suit. The Respondents denied the claims, asserting that the suit land forms part of the estate of the late Saidi Maluti and his late wife Murefu Akim, both of whom died intestate.

They contended that Wabusera only purchased a smaller portion to "top up" his plot to 100 ft by 50 ft, and any use of the suit land (e.g., for a latrine) was with permission.

The Respondents claimed continuous possession, including a prior grass-thatched house on the site occupied by Maluti.

The Appellant filed Land Suit No. 012 of 2022 in the lower court seeking eviction, a permanent injunction, general damages, and costs. The Grade One Magistrate dismissed the Appellant’s suit, found him not to be the owner of the land, held that the Respondents were not trespassers, and awarded the Respondents general damages of UGX 3,000,000.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the High Court.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

The lower court framed the following issues for determination;

(a) Whether the Plaintiff (Appellant) is the owner of the suit land?

(b) Whether the Defendants (Respondents) are trespassers on the suit land?

On appeal, the grounds raised were;

(a) The trial magistrate erred in dismissing the suit on limitation, as the trespass claim arose in 2012 (or 2020 per evidence), not time-barred.

(b) The trial magistrate erred in awarding UGX 3,000,000 in general damages to the Respondents, which were not pleaded.

(c) The trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate evidence and wrongly declared the 2nd Respondent the rightful owner without a counterclaim, causing a miscarriage of justice.

Additionally, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant lacked locus standi, as his letters of administration (granted in May 2021) had expired by May 2023 under Section 256(2) of the Succession Act, Cap 268.

SUBMISSIONS

For the Appellant

The Appellant's counsel argued that the lower court misapplied limitation laws, improperly awarded unpleaded damages, and failed to evaluate evidence showing the Appellant's ownership via the 1992 purchase agreements (PEX.1 and PEX.2). They emphasized that the trespass occurred in 2012–2020, within the limitation period, and sought to set aside the lower court's orders with costs.

For the Respondent

The Respondents' counsel supported the lower court's findings on ownership, asserting the suit land was part of Maluti's estate and that the purchase was limited in scope. They argued no trespass occurred, as they were rightful beneficiaries in possession.

On the preliminary objection, they contended the expired letters invalidated the appeal. Submissions focused on evidence from witnesses and the locus in quo visit, urging dismissal of the appeal.

Legal Representation

Appellant, Represented by Counsel Muruana Robert.
Respondents, Represented by Counsel Masanga Joseph.

COURT’S FINDINGS

Justice Dr. Lubega Farouq, sitting as the first appellate court, restated the duty outlined in Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998), to subject the entire evidence to fresh, exhaustive scrutiny while bearing in mind that the appellate court did not observe witnesses first-hand. Applying this standard, the Court made the following findings:

On Ground 3, Ownership of the Suit Land and Evaluation of Evidence

The Court found that the Appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land.

(a) Deficiencies in the Appellant’s Documentary Evidence

The principal sale agreement (PEX.1) showed that the Appellant’s father purchased land from the late Saidi Maluti in 1992, but the agreement did not indicate the size, boundaries, or precise description of the land. The second document (PEX.2) was largely illegible, rendering it unreliable.

The Appellant’s key witness (PW2), who claimed to be present during the sale, admitted that the land was not measured or demarcated at the time of purchase. This left the Court without credible evidence establishing the exact land allegedly bought.

(b) Physical Observations at the Locus in Quo

At the locus visit, the Court made critical observations;

A three-roomed permanent commercial building, visibly aged, stood on the land.
The structure faced Buwalasi View Road and was in the actual possession of the 2nd Respondent, indicating long-term occupation.
Multiple graves were found on the land, which neither the Appellant nor his witnesses knew about, strong evidence of the Maluti family’s longstanding control and use of the land.

These findings contradicted the Appellant’s claim that the Respondents only entered the land in 2012–2020.

(c) Overall Assessment of Possession and Ownership

Despite minor inconsistencies in the Respondents’ testimony (such as whether the land was gifted to the 2nd Respondent or retained as family land), the Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly showed the land remained part of the estate of the late Saidi Maluti.

Because the Respondents were already in possession, they did not need to file a counterclaim to assert ownership.

Conclusion on Ground 3

The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.

Ground 3 was dismissed.

The Court observed that;

“The presence of the completed permanent house with residents therein indicates that the Respondents had been in occupation of the suit land for a long time… The presence of graves on the suit land, of which the Appellant and his witnesses appeared to have no knowledge, further demonstrates that the suit land was not part of the land that the late Saidi Maluti sold to the late John Wabusera.”

Ground 1, Whether the Suit Was Time-Barred (Limitation)

The Court reversed the lower court’s finding on limitation.

Relying on Bwire Stephen v Nakirya Fulumena (CA No. 24 of 2016 (2025)), the Court reaffirmed that the limitation period for trespass begins when the cause of action accrues, meaning when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the alleged encroachment, not when the defendant first enters the land.

Evidence from PW1, PW3, and PW4 showed that the Appellant only discovered the alleged trespass in 2020, when the caretaker notified the family.

Since the suit was filed in May 2022, it was well within the statutory limitation period.

Ground 1 was allowed.

The Court observed;

“The cause of action accrued in 2020 when PW3 contacted the Appellant’s family regarding the alleged trespass. Hence, the suit was filed in time and was not barred by limitation.”

Ground 2 Award of General Damages to Respondents

The Court agreed that the trial magistrate erred by awarding general damages to the Respondents.

Their written statement of defence did not plead general damages, nor did they file a counterclaim. Although courts have discretion to award general damages, that discretion cannot be exercised in the absence of a specific plea.

Furthermore, the Respondents were in possession of the land and had suffered no proven injury.

Ground 2 was allowed.

The Court held that;

“General damages should be pleaded before the court can exercise its discretion… The Respondents, being the ones in possession of the suit land, did not suffer any wrong, and the trial court wrongly exercised its discretion when it awarded the Respondents general damages.”

The Preliminary Issue on Locus Standi and Expiry of Letters of Administration

The Respondents argued that the Appellant lacked locus standi because his letters of administration had expired by the time of appeal. The Court rejected this objection.

Under Section 256(2) of the Succession Act, letters remain valid for two years. The Appellant filed the suit on 11 May 2022, within the valid period (the letters expired in May 2023).

Therefore, any subsequent steps, including the appeal, remain valid.

The court held that;

“Since Land Suit No. 12 of 2022 was instituted while the letters were still valid, any subsequent actions arising from those letters, including the instant appeal, cannot be said to have been instituted without locus standi.”

Holding

The appeal partially succeeds. The lower court's decision and orders are upheld, save for the following modifications;

It is declared that the suit land belongs to the estate of the late Saidi Maluti.
The award of UGX 3,000,000 in general damages to the Respondents is set aside.
The Appellant is awarded 40% of the costs of this appeal.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Limitation in Trespass Claims Depends on Knowledge, Not Entry

The limitation period begins to run when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the trespass, not when the defendant first steps onto the land. Discovery, not physical entry, is the trigger for time to start running.

2. Relief Must Be Specifically Pleaded

Courts cannot award remedies such as general damages unless they are expressly pleaded. A court cannot act as “Father Christmas” by granting relief a party never asked for, even if the party succeeds.

3. Burden of Proof in Land Disputes Is Strict

A party alleging ownership must prove it with clarity. Vague or incomplete sale agreements, especially those lacking clear size, boundaries, or demarcations, significantly weaken ownership claims.

4. Long Possession and Physical Features Are Powerful Evidence

Physical developments such as old permanent buildings, visible family graves, and continuous occupation strongly support a claim of ownership or long-standing customary possession, often outweighing incomplete documentary evidence.

5. No Counterclaim Needed for Party Already in Possession

A defendant in actual possession of land does not need to file a counterclaim. Their possession alone is a sufficient shield against a claim seeking to dispossess them.

6. Letters of Administration on the Validity and Continuity

Letters of administration remain valid for two years, However, any suit instituted during their valid life remains valid throughout, including on appeal. Expiry does not extinguish locus standi for proceedings already commenced.

7. Duty of a First Appellate Court

A first appellate court must re-evaluate the entire record and evidence afresh, but must do so with the understanding that it did not see the witnesses firsthand, and therefore must show deference where credibility is central.

8. Locus Evidence Can Override Oral Testimony

Evidence observed at the locus in quo, such as the age of structures, nature of occupation, and presence of graves, can decisively disprove alleged timelines of ownership or trespass and may outweigh witness testimony.

Read the full case