From Contribution to Exclusion: Uganda’s Succession Law Betrays Widows and Elevates Lineal Descendants

No one dreams of becoming a widow, yet life can thrust this pain upon any woman—a shattering loss that leaves her to grieve, rebuild, and carry on.

Picture a Ugandan widow who spent years building a family home with her husband—cultivating gardens, raising children, tending to livestock, and investing in the household’s wealth in every way she could. She made a home, not just for her husband, but for their children, extended family, and community. Then, her husband dies intestate. She mourns, survives, and eventually—courageously—remarries, seeking companionship in a world that suddenly feels lonely and uncertain.

Then the second blow strikes: she is told she has no right to remain in the home she helped create. Why? Because Uganda’s Succession Act, specifically Section 22(1) and Schedule 3, says that a remarried widow loses her right of occupancy in the matrimonial home.

Her contributions—financial, emotional, and domestic—are rendered irrelevant. Her dignity is subordinated to legal technicalities and patriarchal traditions that still treat widows as dependents, not co-owners.

While Uganda’s progressive jurisprudence on matrimonial property recognises spousal contributions in divorce proceedings, that logic collapses at death.

Instead, the law prioritizes lineal descendants, leaving remarried widows disenfranchised and displaced.

This article explores this injustice, weaving together statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and constitutional principles. It is a feminist call to reform succession law so that it respects, rather than erases, women’s contributions.

I. Matrimonial Property: A Recognised Right—But Only in Divorce

Matrimonial property, though not explicitly defined in Ugandan law, includes the family home, household goods, land, and other assets acquired during marriage, as noted by jurist Maria Nassali in the book The Politics of Putting Asunder Divorce, Law and the Family in Uganda (Published in 2016 Fountain Publishers), pg. 194

In Kintu v. Kintu, Bbosa J defined it as “property which the parties chose to call home and which they jointly contribute to.” This principle, rooted in Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution, affirms that everyone, including spouses, have a right to own property.

Ugandan courts have consistently recognized both direct (financial) and indirect (domestic, caregiving) contributions to matrimonial property.

In Kagga v. Kagga (High Court Divorce Cause No. 11/2005), Justice Mwangusya emphasized that contributions, whether monetary or through domestic services, entitle spouses to a share.

The Supreme Court in Julius Rwabinumi v. Hope Bahimbisomwe reinforced this, requiring evidence of tangible contributions, while Ambayo v. Aserua (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015) clarified that non-monetary contributions, like childcare, household management, and subsistence farming, carry monetary value equivalent to market services.

Cases like Kivuitu v. Kivuitu and Nderitu v. Kariuki further underscore that indirect contributions, especially by women, must be valued, with Omolo Ag J.A noting, “The time when an African woman was presumed to own nothing at all… has long gone.”

Yet this legal recognition only applies during divorce or separation. When a spouse dies intestate, the widow’s contributions suddenly become invisible.

Separation and the Silent Disinheritance of Widows

Beyond remarriage, even separation without divorce can strip a woman of her inheritance rights. This was the painful lesson in Makumbi v Nabatanzi & Others (Civil Suit Nos. 84 & 15 of 2021) [2024] UGHCFD 86.

Ethel Makumbi had been legally married to Patrick Makumbi since 1972. They had one daughter and lived together for decades before separating in 1995. Patrick died intestate in 2020.

Though still legally married, Ethel was disqualified from inheritance under Section 26(1) of the Succession Act, which bars a spouse from inheriting if they were no longer members of the same household at the time of death.

The court emphasized that separation is a factual, not legal, determination. Since the plaintiff had lived apart from the deceased for over 25 years, she could not benefit from his estate—even though their marriage was never dissolved.

While the will was upheld as valid despite minor procedural irregularities, the case highlighted how the law punishes emotional and physical distance, even when there’s no legal dissolution.

The ruling strengthens the view that women who separate—due to neglect, abuse, or survival—must forfeit their legal entitlements.

This is legal widowhood without recognition, a stealth disinheritance.

The Harsh Reality of Section 22(1) and Schedule 3

The Succession Act Cap 268 governs intestate succession, defining a “spouse” as a husband or wife in a recognized marriage and “lineal descendants” as including adopted children.

Section 22(1) holds the principal residential holding in trust for the spouse and lineal descendants, subject to Schedule 3, which terminates a spouse’s occupancy rights upon remarriage (Schedule 3, para. 8(1)(a)).

Section 23(7) allows a remarried spouse to claim a share of the non-residential estate (e.g., 20% if lineal descendants exist), but losing the family home is a devastating blow.

This legal architecture prioritizes lineal descendants, defined to include adopted children, over the very woman who helped build the home. It penalizes a widow for choosing companionship and second chances. It also perpetuates the misogynistic presumption that a remarried widow ceases to care for her children.

Two recent cases illustrate the real-world cruelty of this regime.

In Ngugi Richard (delivered July 8, 2025, by Hon. Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere), the High Court invalidated a will for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act and Section 47(1)(c), declaring the deceased intestate. Tumwebaze Perpetua, a remarried widow, was disqualified from occupying the principal residential holding under Section 22(1) and Schedule 3, despite her contributions.

Similarly, Harriet Nababiito Nakato v David Lukanga([2024] UGHC 225, pp. 7-9) upheld the remarriage bar, denying a widow’s occupancy rights. These cases highlight how the law prioritizes lineal descendants, leaving widows vulnerable.

What If There Are No Lineal Descendants? A Deepening of Exclusion

A common question is: What happens if there are no lineal descendants? Would the widow be treated more favourably? The answer, regrettably, is no.

Under Section 23(7) of the Succession Act, where a spouse remarries before the deceased’s estate is distributed, she may still be entitled to her statutory share.

However, in the absence of lineal descendants, the property devolves to the customary heir. This means that the very home built by the couple, often with the widow’s substantial efforts, passes not to her—but to a male relative appointed by tradition.

To make matters worse, Section 23(8) provides that where the customary heir is also a lineal descendant, they are entitled to both shares that of a customary heir and as a descendant. In essence, the law offers double inheritance to heirs and zero occupancy to remarried widows, even when no children are involved.

This reinforces the patriarchal tilt of the law, whereby widows remain second-tier claimants in the estates they helped grow, especially if they dare to remarry.

Constitutional Contradictions

The Succession Act’s treatment of widows violates multiple provisions of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution:

1. Article 26 – Right to Property: Where a widow’s contribution gives her a proprietary stake in the home—as recognised in Ambayo v Aserua—removing her based on marital status violates her property rights.

2. Article 31 – Right to Found a Family: Forcing widows to choose between remarriage and shelter infringes on their right to start a new family life.

   
   

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.

A Feminist Call to Action

Uganda’s Succession Act, particularly Section 22(1), Schedule 3, and Section 26, must be challenged and reformed.

Feminist legal advocates must:

1. Challenge Constitutionally

   Petition the Constitutional Court to strike down these provisions for violating Articles 21, 26, and 31, using precedent from Law Advocacy for Women and Ambayo.

2. Amend the Succession Act

   Parliament must legislate that a widow’s contribution, whether or not she remarries or lives separately, remains valid.

   Inheritance law should reflect realities of contribution, not marital status alone.

   
   

3. Raise Awareness and Litigate Strategically

   Use cases like Makumbi, Ngugi Richard, and Nabatanzi to galvanize public attention. Civil society must support widows to bring test cases supported by receipts, testimony, and property evidence.

4. Enforce Uganda’s CEDAW Commitments

   Under Article 16 of CEDAW, Uganda must guarantee equal rights in property at marriage and its dissolution, including by death. The current law violates this international standard.

   
   

Conclusion

Uganda’s succession law, in its current form, forgets the love, labour, and legacy of widows. It reduces decades of contribution—emotional, economic, and domestic, to a legal nullity the moment a woman remarries or separates from her husband. It punishes the widow for seeking companionship, penalises her for surviving grief, and disinherits her for exiting a broken home—even if the marriage was never formally dissolved.

Through cases like Ngugi Richard, Harriet Nababiito Nakato v David Lukanga, and Makumbi v Nabatanzi, we see how the law continues to exalt lineal descendants and customary heirs while excluding the very women who helped build the estate. This is not just legal inconsistency—it is constitutional betrayal.

If Uganda truly upholds the values of equality, dignity, and family, then the law must evolve. Matrimonial contribution should not be erased by remarriage. Separation should not nullify years of co-ownership. And being a widow should not come with the price of homelessness.

Widows are not relics of a man’s legacy. They are co-creators of it. The law must remember that. And so must we.

Waboga David

Legal Researcher

Bibliography

A. Ugandan Legislation

1. Succession Act, Cap 268

2. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995

3. Illiterates Protection Act, Cap 228.

B. International Instruments

1. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979

C. Ugandan Case Law

1. Ngugi Richard and Others v Tumushiime Sam and Nkurunzia Kenneth (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023) [2025] UGHC (unreported)

2. Harriet Nababiito Nakato v David Lukanga (Civil Suit No. 618 of 2018) [2024] UGHC 225

3. Kintu v Kintu [2005] UGHC (Divorce Cause No. 14 of 2003)

4. Kagga v Kagga [2007] UGHC (Divorce Cause No. 11 of 2005)

5. Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe [2013] UGSC 5

6. Ambayo v Aserua [2021] UGCA 69 (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015)

7. Law Advocacy for Women in Uganda v Attorney General [2007] UGCC 1

8. Nakiyingi v Merekizedeki (Civil Suit No. 149 of 2013) [2018] UGHCCD (unreported)

D. Comparative Case Law (Kenya)

1. Kivuitu v Kivuitu [1991] eKLR

2. Nderitu v Kariuki [1997] eKLR

E. Books and Scholarly Articles

1. Maria Nassali, The Politics of Putting Asunder Divorce, Law and the Family in Uganda (Published in 2016 Fountain Publishers) pg. 194

2. Sylvia Tamale, ‘The Right to Culture and the Culture of Rights: A Critical Perspective on Women’s Sexual Rights in Africa’ (2008) 16 Feminist Legal Studies 47

3. Margaret Rugadya, Understanding Women’s Land Rights under Customary Tenure in Uganda (Associates for Development, 2009)

F. Institutional Reports

1. FIDA-Uganda, Inheritance and Marriage Laws in Uganda: A Woman’s Dilemma (FIDA 2014)

2. Uganda Law Reform Commission, Report on Reform of the Law of Succession in Uganda (2011)