The Court of Appeal of Uganda has upheld the High Court's decision on the invalidity of the alleged forged will and fraudulent land registration in an Estate Dispute.

Waboga David
Sep 20
4 min read

Coram

Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC, Musa Ssekaana, JA/JCC, Stella Alibateese, JA/JCC

Facts

The dispute centred on approximately 28.8 hectares of land (LRV 3598 Folio 23) in Karuroko Cell, Kuyonza Parish, Kikatsi Sub-County, Kiruhura District, originally allocated to the late Erina Burunga (deceased in 1998) under the Ankole Ranching Scheme.

The appellant, Robert Kabwanjare, served as a herdsman and caretaker on the land prior to Erina's death.

Post-death, the appellant allegedly forged a will dated 3rd March 1999, purporting to bequeath three-quarters of the estate (including the suit land) to himself, with the remainder to the respondent (Jovanis Rwamunahe, Erina's niece) and the late Merab Rwakamapala (another niece, who passed during proceedings).

The appellant obtained probate as executor (impliedly), registered the land in his personal name, and obtained a certificate of title.The respondent and Merab instituted High Court proceedings challenging the will's validity, alleging forgery and the appellant's status as a mere employee. The appellant counterclaimed, defending the will's authenticity.

The High Court (Joyce Kavuma, J., 9th April 2027) ruled for the respondent, declaring the will invalid, revoking probate, canceling the title, and awarding UGX 5,000,000 in general damages for distress.

The appellant appealed on five grounds.

Issues on Appeal

Whether the trial court erred in holding that the will of Erina Burunga was inadmissible.
Whether the appellant unlawfully obtained the grant of probate.
Whether the certificate of title was obtained fraudulently.
Whether the appellant had a beneficial interest in Erina’s estate.
Whether the award of UGX 5,000,000 as general damages was justified.

Submissions of the Parties

Appellant’s Submissions

The Appellant submitted that the will complied with Sections 36 and 50 of the Succession Act (Cap. 268), being written, dated, thumbprinted by Erina, and witnessed by three persons (including DW2). Execution was proven via DW2's testimony.

The respondent bore the burden under Section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove forgery, which was unmet. The absence of a jurat under Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act (Cap. 288) was a technicality, not a substantive bar, as the Act protects illiterates, not nullifies their intent.

Discrepancies in will copies (e.g., Dexh1 vs. Pexh1) and language (DW2's initial claim of Runyankole, later clarified as English) were minor or lay errors.

That minor discrepancies in different copies of the will were insignificant and did not amount to forgery.

By bequeathing him ¾ of the estate and assigning debt-settlement responsibilities, Erina implicitly appointed him executor under Section 183 Succession Act.

Fraud was not proven; he lawfully obtained title after probate.

Respondent’s Submissions

Multiple inconsistent copies of the will (DEXh1 vs PEXh1) indicated fabrication.

The will was in English, despite witnesses claiming it was drafted in Runyankole, casting doubt on authenticity.

No jurat was included as required by the Illiterates Protection Act (s.3), rendering the will inadmissible.

The appellant was not appointed executor expressly or by implication. Thus, his grant of probate was unlawful.

The appellant forged the will, constituting fraud in obtaining both probate and the certificate of title.

Court’s Findings

Exercising its first appellate duty under Rule 30(1)(a) Court of Appeal Rules and precedents like Uganda v. George Wilson Ssimbuta (SC Crim. App. No. 37 of 1993), the court re-appraised evidence, drawing independent conclusions on the grounds

Ground 1

The Court upheld the inadmissibility of the will. The court found that discrepancies in will copies (e.g., formatting, lines) were "glaringly clear" and non-trivial, contradicting DW2's "one copy" testimony.

Evidence conflicted on the language used (Runyankole vs English) undermined authenticity, with DW2's clarification unconvincing. As an illiterate, Erina required a jurat under Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act confirming explanation in her language, which was absent here, rendering it substantively invalid.

The discrepancies between different versions of the will were substantial, not trivial.

Under Kasaala Growers v. Kakooza Jonathan (SCCCA 19/2010), failure to comply with this Act renders a document invalid.

The burden of proof lay on the appellant under s.101 Evidence Act, which he failed to discharge.

The will was invalid and inadmissible.

On Probate

The court observed that under ss.182–183 Succession Act, probate may only be granted to an executor expressly or implicitly appointed.

The will did not expressly appoint the appellant as executor, nor could such intention be implied.

Even if appointed, the invalidity of the will nullified any probate.

The appellant ought to have sought letters of administration with family involvement and a certificate of no objection.

Thus, the probate was unlawfully obtained.

On Title & Fraud

The Court upheld fraud and observed that the reliance on an invalid/forged will and clandestine personal registration (not as trustee) met the definitions of fraud

Fraud entails intentional deception to acquire property, as seen in Kampala Bottlers v. Damanico.

By forging the will and using it to obtain probate and title, the appellant’s actions amounted to fraud.

The court held that a title procured through fraud is impeachable.

On Beneficial Interest

Since the will was invalid and probate unlawful, the appellant acquired no beneficial interest in Erina’s estate.

Ground 4

The preliminary objection was upheld, as the ground was incompetent under Rule 86(1), citing Interfreight Forwarders Ltd v. East African Development Bank, SCCA No. 33 of 1992). No trial pleading/issue/finding on beneficial interest; the injunction stemmed from fraud, not dependency.

On Damages

The court upheld that the trial court acted within its discretion to award UGX 5,000,000 as general damages. No basis to interfere.

Thus Ground 5 was upheld. Reasonable compensation for distress from fraud

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
The High Court’s judgment was upheld;
The will was invalid.
The probate was unlawfully obtained.
The certificate of title was fraudulently procured and impeachable.
The award of general damages was proper.

Key Takeaways

Strict compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act is mandatory: A will by an illiterate must include a jurat confirming explanation in a language understood. Non-compliance with Section 3 Illiterates Protection Act renders it invalid
Discrepancies in copies of a will undermine authenticity: Courts will not overlook inconsistencies that go to the root of the document.
Executor appointment must be express or clearly implied: Mere bequests or debt settlement duties do not equate to appointment as executor under the Succession Act.
A certificate of title obtained through forgery or fraudulent probate is impeachable notwithstanding registration.
Under s.101 Evidence Act, the party relying on a disputed will must prove its validity.