Court at Mbale Declines Registration and Enforcement of a Kenyan Succession Judgment over Ugandan Land, stating that foreign grants of probate or LOA have no legal effect unless resealed by High Court

Waboga David
6 days ago
5 min read

Facts

The Applicant, Rodgers Matifari Obata, brought a miscellaneous application seeking registration and enforcement in Uganda of a judgment issued by the High Court of Kenya at Bungoma in Succession Cause No. 195 of 2014. He claimed to act as the administrator of the estate of his late father, Luke Matifari Waobata, who died on 31 May 2012.

The Kenyan High Court had issued orders redistributing the deceased’s estate, including land allegedly situated in Bulambuli District, Uganda. The Applicant contended that the Kenyan judgment declared the registration of the Respondent, Wakesa Patrick, over the Ugandan land fraudulent and ordered that the land be redistributed among the beneficiaries of the estate.

The Respondent opposed the application, asserting that the land was jointly registered in his and the deceased's names in 2011 and was gifted to him inter vivos by the deceased in 2012, after which it was registered solely in his name. He claimed the land was not part of the estate at the time of death, that the Kenyan court lacked jurisdiction over Ugandan land, and that the letters of administration had not been resealed in Uganda.

The Respondent also noted that the co-administrator, Peter Wangila Matifari, acknowledged the gift in an affidavit.

Issues

The court framed the following issues for determination:

(a) Whether the Applicant has locus standi to institute this application?

(b) Whether the judgment delivered in Kenya can be registered in Uganda?

Submissions

Applicant's Submissions (Counsel Angura Emmanuel):

Counsel argued that the Applicant is an administrator of the estate and that the deceased left land in Uganda (FRV 1250 Block 4, Bulambuli District), which the Kenyan judgment ordered to be shared among beneficiaries. He contended that the Kenyan judgment is valid, final, unappealed, and not obtained by fraud, making it enforceable under Ugandan law.

Citing Section 3(1) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) and Rule 4 of the related Rules (SI 9-1), counsel emphasized reciprocal enforcement between Commonwealth countries like Kenya and Uganda, as per Section 2 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (General Application) Order 35/2002.

He referenced ABSA Bank Uganda Ltd v. Uchuma (Civil Case 316 of 2021), holding that foreign judgments create legal obligations enforceable on principles of justice. Counsel urged the court to allow the application, as the Kenyan court had jurisdiction over the estate, and the decree for subdividing Ugandan land could be enforced reciprocally.

Respondent's Submissions (Counsel Wamimbi Jude):

Counsel challenged the Applicant's claim of sole administration, noting that letters were granted jointly to the Applicant and Peter Wangila Matifari (per Annexure "A"). He argued that other annexures were improperly marked and should be struck off.

Counsel disputed the Applicant's reference to "Luke Obata" as a stranger, clarifying the deceased as Luka Matifari Waobata, and noted no specific court judgment was referenced for the sharing order. He asserted that the Kenyan court lacked jurisdiction over Ugandan land, rendering the judgment unenforceable.

Additionally, the letters of administration were not resealed in Uganda, depriving the Applicant of locus standi. Counsel argued the land was a valid inter vivos gift (evidenced by joint registration in 2011 and transfer in 2012), not part of the estate, and sought dismissal with costs, calling the application incompetent and abusive.

Legal Representation

Applicant, Represented by Counsel Angura Emmanuel.
Respondent, Represented by Counsel Wamimbi Jude.

Court's Findings

The court analyzed each issue in detail, drawing on statutory provisions and case law, with direct quotations from the judgment.

On Issue 1: Locus Standi

The court found that the Applicant lacked locus standi. Although letters of administration were granted jointly by the Kenyan court to the Applicant and Peter Wangila Matifari, there was no evidence they were resealed in Uganda as required. Quoting Section 2 of the Probates (Resealing) Act (Cap 266):

“Where a court of any country other than Uganda, grants probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person, the probate or letters so granted may, on being produced to, and a copy deposited with, the High Court, be sealed with the seal of that court, and thereupon shall be of the like force and effect, and have the same operation in Uganda as if granted by that court.”

The court held that without resealing, the letters have no effect in Uganda. Additionally, as joint administrators, both should have instituted the application together to ensure joint administration of the estate. The issue was resolved in the negative.

On Issue 2: Registration of the Kenyan Judgment

The court determined that the judgment could not be registered. While acknowledging the Applicant as a judgment creditor (as a beneficiary), it emphasized that the portion relating to Ugandan land could not be executed in Kenya, thus barring registration.

Quoting Section 3(1)(a) & (b) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 10):

“(1) A person, being a judgment creditor under a judgment to which this Part of the Act applies, may apply to the High Court at any time within six years after the date of the judgment or, where there have been proceedings by way of appeal against the judgment, after the date of the last judgment given in those proceedings, to have the judgment registered in the High Court, and on any such application the court shall, subject to proof of the prescribed matters and to the other provisions of this Act, order the judgment to be registered, except that a judgment shall not be registered if at the date of the application—(a) it has been wholly satisfied; or (b) it could not be enforced by execution in the country of the original court.”

The court interpreted this to mean Uganda enforces only judgments executable in their originating jurisdiction. Citing Rule 2 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (General Application) Order 35/2002, it noted reciprocity applies to Commonwealth countries but does not override enforceability limits.

Referencing Volcano Holding Ltd v. All African Logistic Solutions (Miscellaneous Cause No. 230 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 112:

“Registration is a matter of discretion. The court may order the judgment to be registered if it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to do so.”

Guided by these, the court found registration neither just nor convenient, as the Kenyan judgment's order on Ugandan immovable property exceeded its executable scope.

Holding

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The Applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application. The ruling was delivered via email to the parties' advocates on December 31, 2025.

Key Takeaways

Resealing of Foreign Probate Documents: Letters of administration or probate granted abroad must be resealed by the Ugandan High Court under the Probates (Resealing) Act (Cap 266) to have legal effect in Uganda. Failure to do so invalidates locus standi for related proceedings.
Joint Administration Requirements: Where letters are granted to multiple administrators, they must act jointly in estate-related applications to uphold the intent of joint oversight.
Enforceability of Foreign Judgments on Immovable Property: Under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 10), judgments are registrable only if executable in the originating country. Courts in one jurisdiction lack authority to directly adjudicate or enforce orders over land in another, even among reciprocal Commonwealth nations like Kenya and Uganda.
Discretionary Nature of Registration: Registration is not automatic but discretionary, based on justice and convenience, as affirmed in Volcano Holding Ltd v. All African Logistic Solutions.
Practical Implications for Cross-Border Estates: Beneficiaries and administrators handling estates spanning borders (e.g., EAC countries) should prioritize local resealing and separate proceedings for jurisdiction-specific assets to avoid dismissal. This ruling may influence similar cases involving reciprocal enforcement, emphasizing territorial limits on judicial authority. Legal practitioners should ensure all annexures are properly marked and referenced to avoid evidentiary challenges.