High Court Affirms That Delay in Producing a Will Does Not Invalidate It Unless Fraud Is Proven.
- Atuheire Gloria
- May 27
- 4 min read
By Gloria Atuheire
Decision rendered on 9th July 2024
Area of Law: Succession, Trespass, Divorce
Before: Justice Acellam Collins
Representation
During the hearing, learned counsel Michael Pirwoth from Donge & Co. Advocates represented the plaintiffs, whereas the defendants were represented by Counsel Emmanual Candia from Candia Advocates & Legal Consultants.
Introduction
This case concerned a family dispute involving the validity of a will, the administration of an estate, and alleged trespass by the stepmother (the defendant). The plaintiffs, children of the deceased from a previous marriage, challenged the defendant’s actions as executrix, including demolishing a house they claimed belonged to their mother. The court considered issues under succession law, the conduct of the executrix, and property ownership.
Background
The plaintiffs sued their stepmother, seeking to invalidate their late father’s will, which excluded them from inheritance, and claimed she trespassed by demolishing a house built for their mother. They argued the defendant mismanaged the estate and acted oppressively. The defendant countered that the house was dilapidated, her conduct as executrix was lawful, the will was valid, and their mother’s marriage had been dissolved through customary divorce.
Key Issues for Determination
Whether the will of the late Tingo Boniface is invalid, null, and void.
Whether the grant of probate to the defendant has become useless and inoperative.
Who is the rightful owner of the disputed house/property.
Whether the defendant trespassed on the said property.
What remedies are available to the parties.
Resolution of Grounds
1. Whether the will of the late Tingo Boniface was rendered invalid, null, and void
Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the will was invalid, alleging that it was produced two years after the deceased’s death by a stranger and that one of the witnesses had a questionable connection to the defendant. They contended that the will excluded certain children and disposed of property that did not belong to the deceased.
The defendant maintained that the will was validly executed, handwritten by the deceased in Alur, and properly witnessed by two individuals. She emphasized that the deceased was of sound mind and acted of his own free will, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suspicions.
The court found that the will was valid as it complied with Section 50 of the Succession Act. The deceased had signed it, two witnesses attested to it, and there was no evidence proving lack of sound mind. The plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud lacked substantiation, and the delayed disclosure did not affect the will’s validity. The judge upheld the will.
2. Whether the grant to the defendant had become useless and inoperative
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s administration was oppressive and that her demolition of the house rendered the grant useless.
The defendant contended that demolishing the structure was a safety measure and in the best interest of the estate.
The court dismissed this claim, holding that the defendant acted within her lawful duties as executrix and her actions were not oppressive. The plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement.
3. Who is the rightful owner of the suit house/property
The court found that the suit house did not form part of Apio Jares’ estate but was instead a family house bequeathed to the defendant. Since Apio ceased being Tingo’s wife after a customary divorce, her claim to the property was extinguished. The defendant’s actions, including demolition, were within her rights as a lawful executrix.
4. Whether the defendant trespassed on the suit house/property
The central issue was whether the defendant's actions amounted to trespass. Having established that the house did not form part of Apio Jares’ estate but was bequeathed to the defendant, the court concluded that there was no trespass.
5. What remedies are available
The court held that the will of the late Tingo Boniface, executed on 22nd October 2012, is valid and enforceable. The grant remains operative and effective. The suit property forms part of Tingo Boniface’s estate and was not the property of Apio Jares, the plaintiffs’ mother. The defendant did not trespass on the suit property.
Key Takeaways
One of the court’s functions is to foster family unity, not disintegration. Forgiveness remains essential. Article 126 of the 1995 Constitution encourages courts to promote reconciliation among parties.
Whether a grant becomes useless and inoperative depends on the unique facts of each case.
The will was written in Alur—a language not understood by the witnesses—but this did not affect its validity as long as the testator understood its contents.
The inclusion of property not owned by the deceased did not invalidate the will; only the specific bequest related to such property would fail.
Acting in an oppressive manner means exercising authority in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust way. This may include unjust impositions or restrictions.
Rule of Law Principles Established
If suspicions arise surrounding the execution of a will, the court will apply the judicial conscience test to determine its validity. This involves assessing the testator's understanding of the will's content, consequences, and effect, as well as their mental soundness and free will at the time of execution.
A will’s validity is not affected by delayed production unless fraud is proven.
Mere suspicion of bias does not invalidate a will without proof of wrongdoing.
Divorce (customary or otherwise) severs a spouse’s legal claim to marital property unless otherwise specified in the will.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Kommentare