High Court at Kampala (Family Division) revokes fraudulent grant of Letters of Administration, affirms that removal of a caveat on land without notice to the caveator violates natural justice.

Waboga David
Oct 2
6 min read

Facts

The plaintiffs, Eng. Sendawula Mustafa (1st plaintiff) and Safina Munaku (2nd plaintiff), instituted a suit against Issa Kabali (1st defendant), the Administrator General (2nd defendant), and the Registrar of Titles (3rd defendant).

The dispute centered on the estate of the late Kawalana Bumbakali Kiriba, who died on 4th August 1939 (though misrepresented as 2002 by the 1st defendant). The estate had been distributed among beneficiaries under the Succession Register (Volume 5B, Page 689) pursuant to the 1912 Land Succession Law of Buganda and S.I. 150 of 1967.

The 1st plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of the late Kalanzi Jaffari (a son of the deceased) and a great-grandson of the deceased through his father, the late Ahamed Nsubuga. The 2nd plaintiff is a biological daughter of the deceased.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 1st defendant fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration in Administration Cause No. 1482 of 2008 by misrepresenting the date of death as 2002, fabricating family minutes, and concealing surviving beneficiaries, including the 2nd plaintiff.

With the grant, the 1st defendant transferred estate land (Kyaggwe Block 84 Plots 31, 32, 40, 41 at Kiyunga, Mukono) into his own name and sold portions to third parties, leading to evictions of rightful beneficiaries.

The 2nd defendant issued a Certificate of No Objection to the 1st defendant despite knowing of the prior distribution. The 3rd defendant removed protective caveats lodged by beneficiaries without statutory notice.

The defendants denied the claims, with the 1st defendant arguing res judicata due to pending suits (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2011 in Jinja and No. 122 of 2011 in Family Division), lack of locus standi for the 1st plaintiff, and ulterior motives.

The 2nd defendant disclaimed responsibility, asserting the certificate was discretionary and the 1st defendant was accountable only to the court.

The suit proceeded ex parte after the 1st defendant's defense was filed, but participation lapsed, leading to an order under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules on 29th January 2025. An earlier ex parte judgment on 22nd August 2019 was set aside by consent on 24th July 2020, allowing the defense to be filed.

Issues for Determination

Whether the Plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the suit.
Whether the Administrator General (2nd Defendant) was negligent in issuing the Certificate of No Objection.
Whether the 1st Defendant fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration.
Whether the Registrar of Titles (3rd Defendant) wrongfully removed caveats.
What remedies are available to the parties.

Legal Representation

Plaintiffs represented by Counsel Matovu Fahima.
Defendants no active representation noted after the suit proceeded ex parte; the 1st defendant filed a written statement of defense but did not participate fully.

Submissions

Issue 1 (Locus Standi)

Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that the 1st plaintiff derives interest as administrator of the late Kalanzi Jaffari's estate (a direct son of the deceased) under Section 176 of the Succession Act, holding property in trust for beneficiaries (citing Kinene Edward & Anor v Simon Kaggwa & Ors [HCCS No. 258 of 2016]). The 2nd plaintiff, as a biological daughter, has direct rights to protect inheritance (citing Sentongo v Kiyimba [HCCS No. 53 of 2016]).

Both have sufficient interest as lineal descendants.

Defendants (1st)

Contended the 1st plaintiff lacks locus as a great-grandson (third-degree descendant) whose father's estate (Ahamed Nsubuga) already claimed shares via Kalanzi Jaffari's administration; the suit was abusive to evade prior orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 2011 and pending Jinja suit.

Issue 2 (2nd Defendant's Negligence)

Plaintiffs' counsel argued the 2nd defendant, as custodian of Succession Registers under S.I. 150 of 1967, knew of the 1939 distribution but negligently issued the certificate based on the 1st defendant's false 2002 death claim, breaching fiduciary duty and aiding fraud (citing Nagaddya & Anor v Administrator General [HCCS No. 45 of 2021]).

Defendants (2nd)

Asserted the certificate was discretionary; the 1st defendant was accountable only to the court; no grant was held by the 2nd defendant, and alleged illegalities were not its responsibility.

Issue 3 (1st Defendant's Fraud)

Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that the 1st defendant fabricated family minutes, misrepresented the death date, and concealed beneficiaries (including the 2nd plaintiff), constituting intentional perversion of truth (citing Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Ors [SCCA No. 04 of 2006]).

Defendants (1st)

Denied fraud, claiming compliance with obligations post-certificate issuance.

Issue 4 (3rd Defendant's Removal of Caveats)

Plaintiffs' counsel argued caveats were lawfully lodged by beneficiaries, but removed without notice under Section 124(1) of the Registration of Titles Act, facilitating fraud (citing East Africa Foam Ltd v Attorney General & Ors [SCCA No. 02 of 2022]).

Defendants (3rd)

No specific submissions; proceeded ex parte.

Issue 5 (Remedies)

Plaintiffs sought revocation of the Letters of Administration, surrender of estate property, permanent injunction, cancellation of the 2nd defendant's certificate, restoration of caveats, damages, and costs. Counsel added prayers for general and exemplary damages.

Court’s Findings

On Locus Standi

The Court observed that the question of locus standi is foundational in succession disputes since only persons with a demonstrable interest in the estate can sustain a claim. It noted that the 1st Plaintiff, as Administrator of the estate of Jaffari Kalanzi (a son of the deceased), had a legal right to safeguard the beneficial interest of that estate within the larger estate of the late Kawalana Bumbakali Kiriba.

The 2nd Plaintiff, being a direct biological child of the deceased, had an inherent and unquestionable interest in the estate. The Court therefore reaffirmed the principle that both administrators of related estates and direct beneficiaries have locus standi to challenge fraudulent or irregular grants.

Both plaintiffs had sufficient locus standi.

Negligence of the Administrator General

The Court observed that the Administrator General is vested with statutory and fiduciary duties to exercise due diligence when issuing Certificates of No Objection. It noted that in this case, the 2nd Defendant ignored clear records in the Succession Register showing that the deceased had died in 1939 and that his estate had already been distributed. By nevertheless issuing a Certificate of No Objection in 2008, the Administrator General failed in its public duty of care. The Court reaffirmed that where the Administrator General negligently disregards succession records and thereby facilitates fraud, its actions amount to a breach of fiduciary trust and are ultra vires.

The 2nd Defendant acted negligently, ultra vires, and in breach of fiduciary duty.

Fraud by the 1st Defendant

The Court observed that the 1st Defendant misrepresented critical facts, including the date of death of the deceased, fabricated family minutes to create the appearance of consent, and deliberately concealed the existence of surviving beneficiaries such as the 2nd Plaintiff. It noted that fraud in succession proceedings vitiates everything, and any Letters of Administration obtained through such falsehoods cannot stand. The Court reaffirmed the established position that concealment of material facts, falsification of records, and misrepresentation constitute fraud under Section 230 of the Succession Act.

The Letters of Administration issued to the 1st Defendant were procured by fraud and are void.

Unlawful Removal of Caveats by the Registrar of Titles

The Court observed that caveats serve as vital protective mechanisms in land transactions to safeguard the interests of beneficiaries and third parties. It noted that the Registrar of Titles removed the caveats lodged by the Plaintiffs without issuing the mandatory statutory notice as required under Section 124 of the Registration of Titles Act. In support, the Court reaffirmed the authority in East Africa Foam Ltd v Attorney General & Ors, SCCA No. 02 of 2022, which held that removal of a caveat without giving prior notice to the caveator is illegal, null, and void. The Court therefore found that the Registrar acted unlawfully and in violation of statutory safeguards.

The Registrar of Titles’ removal of caveats was wrongful, unlawful, and null.

Remedies

The Court observed that where fraud and negligence are established, the proper remedy is to annul the fraudulent grant, restrain further intermeddling, and compensate the aggrieved parties. It noted that the Plaintiffs had suffered loss and inconvenience as a result of the Defendants’ actions.

The Court therefore reaffirmed its power under the Succession Act and Civil Procedure rules to grant appropriate relief.

Orders

The Letters of Administration issued to the 1st Defendant are revoked.
A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 1st Defendant from further intermeddling with the estate.
General damages of UGX 50,000,000 are awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Costs of the suit are awarded against the 1st Defendant.

Key Takeaways

Administrators of intermediate estates (e.g., a son's estate) and direct beneficiaries (e.g., children) have standing to protect interests in ancestral estates, emphasizing "sufficient interest" to prevent abuse while allowing equitable claims.
Certificates of No Objection are not discretionary formalities; custodians must verify records (e.g., Succession Registers) to avoid negligence, with breaches rendering actions ultra vires and voidable.
Misrepresentation of death dates or concealment of beneficiaries strictly triggers revocation under Section 230, Succession Act; fraud "vitiates everything" and must be proved on balance of probabilities.
Removal without notice under the Registration of Titles Act violates natural justice (Articles 28, 44, Constitution), making transactions void and underscoring the Registrar's duty to prevent fraud.
Courts may proceed ex parte for non-participation (Order 17 Rule 4, CPR), but prior judgments can be set aside by consent, balancing diligence with fairness.
Public officers (e.g., Administrator General, Registrar) bear high fiduciary standards in estate administration to safeguard vulnerable beneficiaries, with precedents reinforcing strict compliance to deter fraudulent intermeddling.