High Court at Luwero Revokes Letters of Administration for Mismanagement of Estate; states that administrators are trustees, not owners. Treating estate property as personal property constitutes fraud

Waboga David
Sep 25
5 min read

Introduction

Estate administration in Uganda is, in principle, a straightforward process. Once a person is granted probate or letters of administration, they assume a fiduciary duty to manage the estate of the deceased in accordance with the law. The administrator must;

Administer the estate diligently and in good faith;
File an inventory of the deceased’s property within six months of the grant; and
File periodic accounts showing how the estate has been applied or distributed.

Where an administrator requires additional time, the law permits them to apply for an extension. Compliance with these duties ensures that beneficiaries receive their entitlement and prevents wastage of the estate.

However, failure to meet these obligations introduces serious complications. Administrators who neglect their statutory duties risk not only losing their appointment but also facing personal liability for mismanagement or fraudulent dealings. The courts are vested with supervisory powers to revoke grants for just cause, including deliberate failure to file inventories, accounts, or where administrators act contrary to the interests of beneficiaries.

In the recent case of Ssengendo Jafali and Another v Nangendo Lovinsa and Another (Civil Suit No. 85 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1023 (23 September 2025), the High Court of Luwero confronted this very issue. The court found that administrators had grossly mismanaged the estate of the late Zakaliya Aligaweesa, failed to file inventories since 2014, and unlawfully appropriated estate property for personal gain.

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the principle that estate administrators are trustees of the estate and must act in the best interests of all beneficiaries, subject to strict statutory duties of accountability.

Facts

In 2014, the defendants were granted Letters of Administration for the estate of the late Zakaliya Aligaweesa,

Instead of ensuring fair and proper administration, the defendants;

The defendants registered themselves as sole owners of the suit properties without obtaining consent from other beneficiaries.

They used the estate for personal gain, transferring titles to their children and evicting other beneficiaries from their ancestral home.

Burial grounds were encroached upon by third-party "purchasers," diminishing the estate's value and cultural significance.

The defendants negotiated with squatters, promising certificates of title, but failed to deliver, leaving squatters in limbo.

No inventory or account of the estate was filed with the court since 2014, nor was any extension of time sought.

The plaintiffs sought court intervention to prevent further wastage and mismanagement of the estate.

During a locus in quo visit, it was confirmed that the defendants prioritized personal interests, resisted distribution suggestions, and lodged caveats or initiated criminal charges against objectors.

The estate has remained undistributed for 11 years, despite all beneficiaries being of age, leading to ongoing waste and grievances.

Issues

Whether the defendants rightfully administered the estate of the late Zakaliya Aligaweesa.
What remedies were available to the plaintiffs.

Submissions

Plaintiffs

Defendants abused their fiduciary duty as administrators by fraudulently transferring estate property into personal and children’s names.

Without beneficiary consent, the defendants registered properties in their own names and those of their children, chased beneficiaries away, and allowed encroachment on burial grounds.

No inventory or accounts had been filed for 11 years, violating Section 278(1) of the Succession Act.

The defendants’ actions were fraudulent, illegal, and prejudicial to the beneficiaries.

Defendants

Did not appear for the hearing despite proof of service.

In the 2nd defendant's WSOD (unchallenged in court), she admitted joint administration but blamed the 1st defendant for unilateral decisions, resistance to distribution, and turning the estate into personal gain.

Court's Findings

The court observed that the defendants' administration of the estate was marred by significant breaches of statutory and fiduciary obligations,

The court observed that Section 278(1) of the Succession Act mandates administrators to file an inventory within six months and an account within one year (or extended time). It established that the defendants' failure to comply since 2014 was willful and without reasonable cause, constituting grounds for revocation under Section 230(2)(e)-(f).

The court reiterated that the defendants treated the estate as personal property, fraudulently transferring titles without beneficiary consent. It further clarified that such actions breached fiduciary duties, as administrators hold property in trust for beneficiaries, not for personal enrichment, citing Christine Nazziwa v. Ismael Nyombi Gawera & Anor and the persuasive Kenyan case Re: Estate of Julius Mimano (2019 KLR).

The court established that administrators, as trustees under the law, owe a duty to account to both the court and beneficiaries. It was observed that the defendants' actions, evicting beneficiaries, selling burial grounds to third parties, and transferring titles to their children, amounted to deliberate waste and personal gain, violating this trust.

The court reiterated that evidence from the plaintiffs, the locus in quo visit, and the 2nd defendant's WSOD confirmed intentional omission. It further clarified that the 11-year delay in distribution, resistance to beneficiary demands, and encroachment on culturally significant burial grounds demonstrated malice and neglect.

The court observed that precedents such as Kaheru Yasin & Anor v. Zinomurumi David, Samuel Kabagambe Ntungwa & 2 Ors v. Florence Kekibuga Ntungwa, and Abubaker Sebalamu v. Yasmin Nalwoga (Supreme Court) affirm that non-compliance and fraud justify revocation. It established that the defendants' conduct aligned with these grounds.

The court reiterated that the plaintiffs' unchallenged evidence, strengthened by the defendants' non-appearance, solidified the findings of mismanagement and fraud.

The court resolved the sole issue in the negative, concluding that the defendants did not rightfully administer the estate.

Holding

The court held that the defendants mismanaged the estate through fraud, neglect, and breach of duties. Accordingly, it issued the following orders:

Declaration that the defendants failed to properly execute their duties as administrators.
Revocation of the Letters of Administration granted in Administration Cause No. 567 of 2014.
Appointment of the plaintiffs (Sengendo Jafari and Makubuya Samuel) as new administrators for a period not exceeding two years (expiring September 26, 2027, unless extended).
The new administrators must file an inventory and accounts every six months, culminating in a final account upon expiry.
Cancellation of all transactions on the suit lands (specified plots in Buruli and Bulemezi Blocks), with titles reverting to the name of the late Zakaliya Aligawesa.
The 1st defendant to pay UGX 20,000,000 (Twenty Million Uganda Shillings) as damages to the estate for wrongful acts.
Interest on damages at the court rate from the date of judgment until full payment.
Costs of the suit to be borne by the defendants.

In obiter, the court urged prompt distribution, noting estate administration is not indefinite.

Key Takeaways

This judgment reinforces core principles

Filing inventories and accounts is non-negotiable under Section 278(1) of the Succession Act. Willful failure can lead to revocation, criminal liability (under the Penal Code), and personal financial accountability.
Administrators are trustees, not owners. Treating estate property as personal (e.g., unauthorized transfers or sales) constitutes fraud and mismanagement, voiding transactions under Section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act.
Courts will revoke grants for "just cause" (Section 230), including omission of accounts, estate waste, or beneficiary harm. Evidence of intent (e.g., via conduct or admissions) shifts the burden.
Beyond revocation, courts can appoint new administrators (limited to two years under Section 259(2)), order title cancellations, and impose damages/compensation to "make good" losses—here, targeting the primary wrongdoer.
Beneficiaries can seek intervention for prolonged delays in distribution. Site visits (locus in quo) and ex parte proceedings strengthen claims when administrators default.

Implications for Practitioners
Advise clients on timely filings and consensual actions. In disputes, document beneficiary consent and avoid unilateral decisions. This case highlights the risks of non-appearance, as unchallenged evidence can lead to adverse outcomes.

With estates often involving family lands and cultural sites (e.g., burial grounds), mismanagement exacerbates intergenerational conflicts. Administrators should prioritize equitable distribution to avoid judicial intervention.