High Court clarifies that a gift inter vivos must be perfected during the Donor’s lifetime and is not capable of validation posthumously through Letters of Administration.

Waboga David
Jun 2
8 min read

Brief for the case of Kakembo & 4 Others v Nakato (Civil Suit 305 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 21 (30 May 2025)

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Christine A. Echookit

Legal Representation

The plaintiffs were represented by Mr Frank Sewagudde
The Defendant's Stanley Kawalya and Jabary Luyima

Introduction

The High Court clarified several legal principles governing the administration of estates under the Succession Act Cap 268. Central among them is the statutory obligation for administrators to file an inventory and account within six months of receiving a grant; non-compliance, though not automatically fraudulent, may warrant revocation if shown to be deliberate or materially misleading.

The High Court equally emphasised the requirement that any claim to beneficial interest in an estate must be supported by concrete evidence of one’s status as a beneficiary. Mere familial proximity or self-asserted entitlement is insufficient.

While adverse possession may justify ownership where occupation has been exclusive, continuous, and undisturbed for over 12 years, it cannot override the formal fiduciary and procedural duties imposed by law.

The High Court further clarified that a person administering an estate must first register land in their representative capacity before transferring it into their name; failure to do so is irregular and may be contested.

Also, claims grounded in customary inheritance must demonstrate the existence and application of specific customs, not merely invoke cultural norms.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the validity of a gift inter vivos, mainly involving land, depends on its completion during the donor’s lifetime. Such a gift cannot be perfected posthumously through letters of administration. Oral declarations, uncorroborated claims, or reliance on administrative grants cannot substitute for the formal legal requirements of intent, delivery, and acceptance.

Lastly, the mere lack of notice to potential beneficiaries is not, on its own, grounds for revocation unless deliberate concealment is proven. And while litigants may rely on legal counsel, this does not offer blanket immunity, liability may still arise if misconduct can be traced to the client’s instruction or complicity

Facts

The Plaintiffs (Kakembo Samwiri, Babirye Sylvia, Kintu Norah, Nakazi Eriyosi, and Bira Nassanga), grandchildren of Absolom Sseviri Mudiima (father to the deceased), sued Florence Nakato Mubanda (granddaughter of the deceased Agiri Nakanyoro), seeking revocation of her 2007 letters of administration, which she used to transfer land (Busiro Block 489 Plot 7 at Ssanda) into her personal names.

They alleged fraud and exclusion from the administration of the estate.

The Defendant counterclaimed, asserting she was gifted the suit land inter vivos by the deceased and that the land does not form part of the estate. She sought a declaration of ownership and general damages for embarrassment and inconvenience.

Preliminary Objection

The Defendant objected to the suit on two grounds:

The suit had no cause of action and argued that the Plaintiffs' suit was a disguised land claim rather than one for revocation of letters.
The defendant further argued that the suit was barred by limitation, and thus cited Section 6(2) of the Limitation Act, asserting that the claim was time-barred as the deceased died in 1968, and any claim for land recovery should have been brought within 12 years either from that date or from the date of possession (2003) or grant of letters (2007).

Court’s Decision on the Preliminary Objection:

The High Court dismissed the P.O on whether the suit lacked a cause of action for lack of supporting submissions. On limitation, the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs: since the claim is based on alleged fraud in obtaining the grant, it is not time-barred under Section 6(2) of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the suit is properly before it and the objection was based on “conjecture.”

Resolution of the 1st Issue

Whether the suit land was validly given to the Defendant as a gift inter vivos by the late Agiri Nakanyoro.

The Defendant alleged that the land was gifted to her as a child by the late Agiri Nakanyoro via a letter and accompanying certificate of title handed to her father. However, both the letter and title were allegedly lost during political turmoil in the 1970s.

The Court emphasized that for a gift inter vivos of land to be valid:

There must be clear intention, delivery, and acceptance.
A deed of gift or registered transfer instrument is essential under Section 91 of the Registration of Titles Act.

The testimony from the Defendant’s witnesses, including a local council letter and family statements, was largely hearsay or contradicted the Defendant’s pleadings.

Notably, the LC letter was based on secondhand accounts and unsupported by documentary proof.

No gift deed, transfer form, or any signed document by the donor was presented to corroborate the Defendant’s claim.

The Defendant’s reliance on later obtaining letters of administration to "perfect" the gift was found inconsistent with the legal concept of a completed gift inter vivos. As the Court noted, a gift completed during the donor’s lifetime cannot be perfected posthumously by estate administration.

🧷 Legal Principle

A gift inter vivos of land must satisfy both common law and statutory formalities, including:

A signed instrument of transfer;
Delivery of the property;
Acceptance by the donee;
Registration under the RTA Cap. 240.

The High Court held that the Defendant failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift inter vivos. In particular, the absence of any formal deed, instrument of transfer, or corroborative documentation meant that no legal gift of land occurred. Consequently, the Defendant’s claim to the suit property based on the alleged gift was dismissed.

📝 Takeaway

A claim of a gift inter vivos, particularly involving land, must be supported by clear, admissible, and contemporaneous evidence of intent, delivery, and acceptance. Oral declarations, hearsay, or posthumous actions such as obtaining letters of administration cannot substitute for the formal legal requirements.

Resolution of the 2nd Issue

Whether the Defendant fraudulently acquired letters of administration to the estate of the late Agiri Nakanyoro.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, in obtaining letters of administration to the estate of the late Agiri Nakanyoro (Administration Cause No. 78 of 2007),misrepresented the deceased’s surviving family by claiming that only she and her late father Alfred Mubanda survived the deceased.

They further accused the Defendant of:

Failing to disclose other rightful beneficiaries;
Procuring a forged certificate of no objection;
Transferring the suit land (Busiro Block 489 Plot 7) into her name;
Failing to render an inventory and account as required under the Succession Act.

The Defendant refuted the allegations and asserted that the land in question had been gifted to her inter vivos by the late Agiri Nakanyoro. She maintained that the application for letters of administration was not fraudulent, but rather a procedural step to perfect the said gift.

Court’s Analysis

The Court reaffirmed that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard higher than mere probability but not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt citing J.W.R. Kazora v M.L.S. Rukuba and Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank.

The Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendant’s conduct rose to the level of fraud. Their accounts were inconsistent and unsupported by concrete evidence, including contradictory claims about whether the suit land reverted to different family estates.

The Court found no evidence of forgery or material concealment on the Defendant’s part. Furthermore, the Defendant admitted that the deceased had more family members, undermining the Plaintiffs’ claim that she intended to deceive.

Allegations that the Plaintiffs previously sold land belonging to a different estate without authority, though not dispositive, suggested a possible ulterior motive and undermined their credibility.

The Court declined to infer customary succession rights in the absence of any evidence of applicable customs.

The High Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant had fraudulently obtained letters of administration over the estate of the late Agiri Nakanyoro, holding that fraud was not proved to the required standard.

Key Takeaways

Fraud in obtaining letters of administration must be proven with clear, cogent evidence. Mere dissatisfaction or family disagreement over inheritance is insufficient.
Customary inheritance claims must be supported by evidence of specific customs and not general assertions of entitlement.
The grant of letters of administration cannot be annulled simply because beneficiaries were unaware of the application, unless deliberate concealment or dishonesty is proved.
Courts will not imply succession rights from one estate to another unless established by evidence or law.

Resolution of the other Issues

Whether the CNO issued in respect of the late Agiri Nakanyoro was a forgery;
Whether the alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the petition process warranted revocation of the letters of administration;
Whether the Defendant’s registration of the suit land in her personal name contravened estate administration principles.

Courts Findings

Forgery and Fraud Not Strictly Proved

The Plaintiffs’ witness, PW1 (Madinah Nakibuule) from the Administrator General’s Office, testified that the certificate in question was not issued by the Administrator General and its serial number corresponded to a different estate.

However, the court found that no original registry book, computer system printout, or other documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate that claim. Oral testimony alone was deemed insufficient to prove forgery. Citing Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd, the court reiterated that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, a burden which the Plaintiffs failed to discharge.

No Direct Evidence of Defendant’s Fraudulent Intent

The Defendant claimed she relied on her lawyers and did not directly engage with the Administrator General’s office. The Plaintiffs offered no rebuttal evidence to suggest that she withdrew those instructions or was directly involved in the alleged forgery.

The Defendant had published a public notice in the Bukedde Newspaper inviting claims concerning the estate, which the court deemed to be adequate notice under probate procedure

Personal Registration of Estate Land Overturned

While fraud was not proved, the court faulted the Defendant for registering the land in her own name, instead of as administrator. This was held to be inconsistent with her fiduciary duties under estate law. The court ordered cancellation of the land registration in her personal name, emphasizing that beneficiaries must first obtain proper administration rights before asserting personal entitlement.

Failure to File Inventory Not Equivalent to Fraud

The Court clarified that although the Defendant failed to file an inventory and final account as required by Section 273(1) of the Succession Act, such omission does not amount to fraud unless specific fraudulent conduct is proven. Citing Abubaker Sebaluma Ganya v. Yasmin Nalwoga SCCA No. 14 of 2017, the Court reiterated:

"The filing of an inventory/account is one of the paramount duties of an administrator/executor of a deceased’s estate."

Nonetheless, the judge ordered the Defendant to apply for leave to file an inventory and final account out of time, signaling the importance of compliance with fiduciary duties even where no fraud is established.

Proper Procedure for Dealing with Estate Property

The Court also criticized the Defendant for registering the suit land in her personal name rather than first as an administrator of the estate:

“What should have been done was for the Defendant's name to be first registered in the certificate of title as an administrator of the estate of the late Agiri Nakanyoro before conversion into her personal name.”

This misstep, while not fraudulent per se, contravened the procedural safeguards under the Registration of Titles Act and the fiduciary role expected of administrators under the Succession Act.

Adverse Possession

The Court acknowledged that even though the Defendant failed to prove a gift inter vivos, her long-term, exclusive, and undisturbed occupation of the land, facilitated by the compensation and removal of squatters by her and her late father, may have justified a claim of adverse possession:

“That aside, if the issue was about adverse possession, the claim of adverse possession would be justifiable in the circumstances that the Defendant has occupied and utilised the suit land exclusively, continuously and undisturbed for over 16 years.”

However, this did not excuse her from the obligations tied to her role as an administrator.

Conclusion

While the Court declined to revoke the Defendant’s letters of administration due to lack of proof of fraud, it made clear that administrators must act transparently and in accordance with both the Succession Act and land registration laws. Claims of adverse possession may provide a defence to title disputes, but they cannot be used to bypass fiduciary obligations or statutory procedure.

Takeaways

Allegations of fraud or forgery in succession matters require documentary and direct evidence, oral claims alone are inadequate.
Personal registration of estate property by administrators, without first acting in their representative capacity, is irregular and subject to cancellation.
Even if documentary irregularities exist, courts will assess whether the minimum procedural safeguards (like public notices) were complied with.
Delegation to lawyers does not automatically absolve one from liability, but clear evidence must be shown of misconduct attributable to the client.
Family members asserting beneficial interest must provide documentary or evidential proof of their status as beneficiaries.

Prepared by Waboga David
Find the full case below