High Court Affirms That Delay in Filing an Inventory May Warrant Revocation of a Grant, Regardless of Applicant’s Status as Beneficiary

Waboga David
May 30
3 min read

Updated: Jun 1

High Court Clarifies the Law on Filing Inventories under the Succession Act

Legal Brief for Re: The Estate of Frida Mugimba, Formerly Resident of Mbarara High School Cell, Ruhaoro Parish, Kamukuzi Division, Mbarara District

(Being an application for extension of time within which to file an inventory, brought by Donald Mugimba and Ruth Mugimba, both administrators of the estate of the late Frida Mugimba)

Prepared

By Waboga David

Introduction

Justice Joyce Kavuma clarified the legal position regarding applications for extension of time to file inventories under the Succession Act, Cap. Cap 268, asserting that the framers of the Act deliberately imposed strict timelines that must be adhered to. While recognising that courts are empowered under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, she stressed that this discretion must not be used to undermine the clear intent of statutory deadlines.

Background

The Applicants, Donald Mugimba and Ruth Mugimba, sought an extension of time to file a true and accurate inventory and account of the estate of the late Frida Mugimba. Letters of Administration had been granted to them on 23 September 2019.

The Applicants cited the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns as having hindered their ability to fulfill their duties within the prescribed time.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Kavuma emphasized the mandatory nature of timelines stipulated under Section 278(1) of the Succession Act, which requires administrators to file an inventory within six months from the date of the grant, or within such further time as may be allowed by the court.

“Failure to file an inventory,” the Court noted, “is a just cause for revocation of a grant under Section 234 of the Succession Act.”

The Court reviewed the precedents of Hadijah Ndagire & Anor v Mohammed Kasozi & Ors (Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014) and Mukisa Patrick & Anor v Nabukalu Rebecca (Civil Suit No. 29 of 2016), which reinforce that administrators must proactively seek extensions when unable to comply within the statutory timeframe.

While acknowledging the Applicants' reference to COVID-19 disruptions, the Court observed that between the grant date (23 September 2019) and the first national lockdown (18 March 2020), the Applicants still had over five months to comply.

Additionally, by the time the application for extension was eventually filed on 20 December 2023, more than four years had lapsed, including three and a half years after COVID-19 restrictions had been eased.

The Court found the delay inexcusable and stressed the principle of "vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit", which means that equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent.

Although the Court recognized its discretion under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and Sections 33 of the Judicature Act and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, it cautioned against using these powers to undermine clearly expressed statutory duties.

Nonetheless, the Court held that dismissing the application outright would defeat the interests of substantive justice. It thus allowed the application, albeit with strict conditions.

Final Orders

The Applicants must file a complete and accurate inventory of the estate of the late Frida Mugimba within 60 days of the ruling.
Failure to comply will result in automatic revocation of the Letters of Administration in accordance with Section 234 of the Succession Act.
No order was made as to costs.

Key Takeaways

The decision reiterates that statutory deadlines under the Succession Act are substantive, not merely procedural.
Delay in filing an inventory can lead to revocation of the grant, even where applicants are also the beneficiaries.
Courts will consider constitutional and equitable principles, but these do not override statutory mandates unless exceptional justification is demonstrated.
Administrators must act diligently and timeously or risk serious legal consequences.

Read the full case below