High Court affirms that a beneficiary in possession of estate land may validly dispose of their beneficial interest even before formal distribution, so long as they do not exceed their entitlement.

Waboga David
Jul 23
7 min read

The Court also affirmed that possession and long-term occupancy do not translate into lawful ownership without legal authority or distribution of the estate

Legal Representation:

For the Plaintiffs: Counsel Munguriek James of M/s Barenzi & Partners LLP
For the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants: Counsel Karoro of M/s A.L Advocates

Introduction

Generally in Uganda, possession and long-term occupancy have often been invoked as a basis to claim ownership of land—particularly in customary and kibanja settings. However, the High Court has reaffirmed that such possession, in the absence of formal legal authority or distribution of the deceased’s estate, does not amount to lawful ownership.

This position was upheld in a recent decision concerning a dispute over land located at Misoli Cell, Kigungu Ward, Entebbe Municipality, where the Court was asked to determine whether approximately one acre formed part of the estate of the late Okaba Anthony Openja.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiffs are biological children of the late Okaba Anthony Openja, who died intestate on January 5, 2018. The 1st Defendant, Matata (a stepbrother), sold part of the deceased’s land at Misoli-Bunonko, Entebbe (approximately 15 acres), while an application for letters of administration was still pending in court. The Plaintiffs alleged that this sale was fraudulent and amounted to intermeddling with the estate.

The suit land was purportedly sold to the 2nd–5th Defendants, some of whom had already taken possession.

The Plaintiffs sought remedies including a declaration that the sales were fraudulent, cancellation of the purchasers’ interests, general and exemplary damages, and a permanent injunction.

Preliminary Issue

The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the suit was premature, irregular, and failed to disclose a cause of action, given that letters of administration had not been granted at the time of filing.

Resolution of the Preliminary Issue

The Court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that:

The Plaintiffs, as biological children of the deceased, had locus standi to protect the estate, especially in light of their application for letters of administration and the certificate of no objection obtained.

The objection raised triable issues of intermeddling and possible fraud, which could not be determined without a full trial.

Therefore, the suit was properly before court and disclosed a cause of action worth judicial consideration.

🔹 Material contradictions and inconsistencies

The Court found material contradictions and inconsistencies in Kayondo Saidi’s Written Statement of Defence, witness statement, and oral testimony.

Contradictions related to key facts such as who conducted due diligence, possession of the land, and cultivation or construction on the land.

The inconsistencies were grave and substantive, affecting the credibility of the entire testimony.

Applying the legal principle from Sseremba v Uganda (2021 UGCA 142), the Court held that such grave unexplained contradictions warranted disregard of his evidence.

Consequently, Kayondo Saidi’s testimony was declared unreliable and rejected.

Key Findings by the Court

1. Possession Does Not Override Succession Law

The 1st Defendant, Matata—a son of the deceased—had occupied the suit land, developed it, and later sold portions of it to third parties (2nd to 5th Defendants). The Plaintiffs, also heirs of the deceased, contested the sale on the ground that the land was part of the estate and had never been lawfully distributed.

The Court emphasized that mere occupation and use of the land by a family member—even for a long period—does not override the need for letters of administration or a lawful distribution process under the Succession Act.

2. No Evidence of a Valid Gift

Matata claimed the land was gifted to him inter vivos by the late Okaba. However, the Court held that there was no deed, formal documentation, or unequivocal act of delivery and acceptance to prove a valid gift. Citing George William Kalule v Norah Nassozi & Anor, the Court reiterated that legal requirements for gifting must be strictly proven.

3. Prior Judicial Admissions Undermine Ownership Claim

In a prior suit (Wanok Charles v Matata, CMCC No. 163 of 2012), Matata himself testified that the suit land belonged to his father, Okaba. The Court noted that he could not now assert ownership contrary to his own prior admission.

Legal Principle Restated

The Court concluded that the suit land remains part of the estate of the late Okaba and must be dealt with according to the principles of intestate succession. It rejected the notion that occupancy confers ownership where the land is subject to succession laws.

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

Implications

Heirs cannot lawfully sell estate land without first obtaining letters of administration.
Purchasers from unauthorized heirs may be deemed trespassers, even if they have occupied or developed the land.
This decision reinforces the requirement of formal administration of estates and protects beneficiaries against unlawful dealings.

Next Issue to Be Determined

The Court is expected to address whether the sale of the land by Matata and the subsequent entry by the 2nd to 5th Defendants amounted to fraud, intermeddling, and trespass, which may attract further legal consequences.

🔹 Trespass to Land

The Court reaffirmed that trespass arises when one enters land without lawful authority, interfering with the lawful possession of another (Justine E.M.N. Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co.).

The Plaintiffs—beneficiaries of the estate—alleged unlawful entry by the 2nd to 5th Defendants following sales orchestrated by the 1st Defendant (Matata), another son of the deceased.

2nd Defendant
No Written Statement of Defence filed and insufficient evidence presented—no finding of trespass.
3rd Defendant
No evidence he purchased land—not a trespasser.
4th and 5th Defendants
Both purchased land from Matata, believing in good faith that he owned it, having consulted local leaders and confirmed Matata’s long occupation of the land. The Court found that Matata had a beneficial interest and that his sale of land within his share did not amount to unlawful entry.
→ Ruling: The 4th and 5th Defendants were not trespassers.

🔹 Intermeddling with the Estate

The Plaintiffs argued that in selling portions of the land, Matata and the purchasers unlawfully dealt with the estate property without letters of administration.

The Court clarified that under Section 11(2) of the Administrator General’s Act and Section 265(2) of the Succession Act, intermeddling involves unauthorized dealings with estate property.

While Matata lacked letters of administration, the Court found he held a beneficial interest and had long been in occupation of the land.

Since it was not proven that Matata sold more than his fair share of the estate, the Court concluded that the sales did not amount to intermeddling.

As for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, no sufficient evidence was adduced to establish intermeddling.

Fraud

The Plaintiffs alleged that the 1st Defendant (Matata), a beneficiary of the estate, fraudulently sold land forming part of the estate to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants.

They further claimed that these purchasers acted fraudulently in buying the land, thereby defeating the interests of the rightful beneficiaries.

Key Allegations of Fraud by Plaintiffs:

That Matata had no legal right to sell the land without letters of administration.

That the 2nd–5th Defendants fraudulently connived with Matata to unlawfully acquire the estate land.

That the purchasers should have known the land belonged to the estate of the late Okaba.

That the sales were effected to defeat the beneficial interests of the Plaintiffs.

Court’s Findings:

🔹 Definition and Proof of Fraud

The Court reaffirmed that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, with a higher burden of proof than regular civil claims. Citing Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Kampala Bottlers v Damanico, the Court emphasized that fraud entails intentional deception to cause legal injury.

🔹 Assessment of Matata’s Conduct

Matata, though lacking letters of administration, had long been in physical occupation of the suit land. Evidence from local leaders and site visits showed:

He had permanent structures, gardens, and family residing on the land.
He had won a prior court case (Civil Suit No. 163 of 2012), reinforcing his perceived claim.
There was no prior objection from the Plaintiffs when the sales were made.

The Court concluded that while Matata may have acted prematurely by selling before the estate was formally distributed, his actions did not amount to fraud, as there was no intent to deceive.

🔹 Purchasers' Conduct (2nd–5th Defendants)

The 4th and 5th Defendants were found to have conducted reasonable due diligence:

They consulted LC1 officials and Matata’s family.
They relied on Matata’s visible occupation and the 2012 judgment.
There was no evidence they knew of any challenge to Matata’s claim at the time of purchase.

Hence, their conduct did not amount to fraud or bad faith.

As for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the Court found insufficient evidence of purchase or fraudulent conduct. No definitive conclusions were made against them.

Key Takeaways

✅ Fraud requires both intent and knowledge of illegality. Mere irregularities or absence of letters of administration do not automatically amount to fraud.

✅ A beneficiary may deal with a portion of estate land aligned to them under customary occupation, even before formal grant of letters of administration, so long as they do not exceed their share.

✅ Due diligence by purchasers—including consulting local leaders and inspecting occupation—is critical in safeguarding transactions involving unregistered or customary interests.

✅ A beneficiary in possession of estate land may validly dispose of their beneficial interest even before formal distribution, so long as they do not exceed their entitlement.

✅ Claims of trespass and intermeddling must be supported by clear evidence, especially where letters of administration are pending.

Remedies

No general or exemplary damages were awarded, as fraud and trespass were not proved.
No eviction order was granted; sales by Matata were upheld to the extent they fall within his lawful share.
No mesne profits or permanent injunction was awarded.
Each party to bear their own costs.

Caution on Protected Wetlands

The Court noted that part of the suit land may fall within a protected lakeshore/wetland zone (200m from Lake Victoria’s low watermark) and reminded parties that such land cannot be sold or alienated, as it is held in trust by the Government.

Read the full case below