High Court Reasserts That Submissions Filed Out of Time Without Leave Are Not on Record and Will Not Be Considered, Thus the Court May Proceed Without the Defaulting Party’s Input.

Waboga David
Jun 3
7 min read

Brief for the case of Godfrey Lubega & Fred Mulindwa v Andrew Muwonge

Legal Representation

The Plaintiffs were represented by counsel Karoro Francis of M/s A.L Advocates.

While counsel Musiimenta Sam and Bawutu Robert of M/s Arcadia Advocates variously represented the Defendant.

Before Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Christine A. Echookit

Introduction

In this decision, the High Court has reinforced key principles in succession law and civil procedure, particularly the legal consequences of filing submissions out of time without leave of court. In Godfrey Lubega & Fred Mulindwa v Andrew Muwonge, the Plaintiffs sought revocation of Letters of Administration fraudulently obtained by their brother in managing the estate of their late father.

While the substance of the case revolved around rightful administration of estate property, the Court, acting suo motu, emphasised that adherence to court timelines is not a procedural nicety but a binding obligation. Submissions filed beyond court-ordered deadlines, without express leave, are not legally on record and must be disregarded.

This decision reiterates the sanctity of procedural compliance, the fiduciary obligations of administrators, and the continuing judicial intolerance for abuse of probate processes through concealment and fraud.

Facts

The Plaintiffs, Godfrey Lubega and Fred Mulindwa, brought a suit concerning the estate of their late father, Nakumusana Edmond, who died intestate in 1998. They challenged the legality of the Letters of Administration granted to their brother, Andrew Muwonge (the Defendant), on 6th February 2018.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant unlawfully obtained the letters and mismanaged the estate, particularly land at Kyadondo Block 245 Plot 326 in Kiwuliriza. They sought revocation of the Defendant's grant, an account of dealings with the estate, redistribution of the land among the three children, and for new letters of administration to be granted to them.

The Plaintiffs were required to file and serve written submissions by 18th April 2025 and the Defendant by 25th April 2025. Rejoinder submissions if any, where to be filed and served by 2nd May 2025. These timelines were suggested by counsel themselves and then set by court.

Issues for determination:

(1) whether the suit land still forms part of the deceased's estate,

(2) whether the Defendant lawfully obtained the letters of administration, and

(3) the appropriate reliefs for the parties.

The Issue of Late Filing of Submissions

Court's determination

The Court noted that though the issue of late filing was not raised as a preliminary objection, the Court found it material and addressed it suo motu.

Citing Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Court emphasized that failure to perform “any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed”, including filing submissions, can result in the Court proceeding without considering the defaulting party’s input.

Citing Theophil Mbilinyi v Ivanune Jeru Mbilinyi, Misc. Civil Revision No. 03 of 2023 (High Court of Tanzania)which adopted the principle from P3525 LT Maganga Gregory v The Judge Advocate General (Court Martial, Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002) that:

"Submissions filed out of time and without leave of the Court are not legally placed on record and are to be disregarded."

Furthermore, referencing the precedent in Nalujja Federesi v Katibe Nkonge Paul & 2 Ors., Misc. Application No. 197 of 2023 wherein Justice Oyuko Anthony Ojok reiterated that court directives are not made in vain, and failure to file submissions as ordered amounts to failure to prosecute one’s case.

The Court also referenced Godfrey Kimbe v Peter Ngonyani, Appeal No. 41/2014:

"It is trite law that failure to file submission is tantamount to failure to prosecute one's case."

🧾 Court Ruling

In light of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the set timelines, the Court declined to entertain the submissions filed out of time. Furthermore, no rejoinder submissions were filed by the date of judgment.

Resolution of the 1st Issue

Whether the suit land still forms part of the deceased's estate

The Court ruled that land comprised in Kyadondo Block 245 Plot 326 at Kiwuliriza remains part of the estate of the late Nakumusana Edmond. The court found that although the property was previously sold to Edward Lorika Athiyo in 1997, it was later redeemed by the deceased’s fiancée, Sepiranza Namubiru Nakumusana, with financial contributions from the Defendant, Andrew Muwonge, and the 1st Plaintiff, Godfrey Lubega. The redemption indicated an intention to restore the property to the estate.

The Defendant’s registration as administrator on the certificate of title (P.EXH.3) further affirmed that the property belongs to the estate. The court emphasized that the administrator holds the property in trust for the beneficiaries and does not become the owner

📝 Court’s Reasoning

The court concluded that the redemption of the property by Sepiranza Namubiru Nakumusana, with contributions from Andrew Muwonge and Godfrey Lubega, indicated an intention to restore the property to the estate of the late Nakumusana Edmond.

The Defendant's registration as administrator on the certificate of title further affirmed that the property belongs to the estate. The administrator holds the property in trust for the beneficiaries and does not become the owner.

Resolution of the 2nd Issue

Whether the Defendant lawfully obtained Letters of Administration

The Court found that the Defendant, Andrew Muwonge, unlawfully obtained letters of administration to the estate of the late Nakumusana Edmond by concealing material facts and misleading both the Administrator General and the court.

The Defendant falsely claimed that the other children of the deceased, Godfrey Lubega and Fred Mulindwa (the Plaintiffs), were "hard to get," despite knowing their identities, whereabouts, and having prior contact with them.

He also misrepresented that the children of the deceased had no objection to his petition for letters of administration, a claim that was demonstrably false.

The court concluded that these actions amounted to deliberate fraud, rendering the Defendant’s letters of administration invalid.

Referencing the Succession Act, Cap 162- Section 230(1), (2)(a), (b) & (e) where grounds for revocation of letters of administration, including fraud, concealment of material facts, and procedural irregularities.

 Section 239 Establishes that a grant of letters of administration is conclusive unless obtained by fraud.

The court referenced the landmark decision of Fredrick Zaabwe v. Orient Bank & 5 Others, SCCA No. 04 of 2006 which defined fraud as “anything calculated to deceive,” including misrepresentation and concealment, whether by speech, silence, gesture, or omission.

Further referencing Nampa Kate v. Ssebagalamba Charles Lwanga, Civil Suit No. 144 of 2024 UGHC 913 wherein the court reiterated that only the administrator appointed by court can lawfully manage the estate, unless and until that appointment is revoked.

As cited by counsel for the plaintiff, the court referenced the decision of Katushabe Generous v. Tukamuhebwa Godfrey, HCCS No. 043 of 2021 which confirmed that administrators must act within the authority of a validly granted appointment.

🧩 Key Facts Considered by the Court

The Defendant claimed the Plaintiffs were unreachable despite knowing their identities and previous contact history.
A public notice in the Daily Monitor was used as a substitute for direct notification, despite one Plaintiff residing in rural Uganda (illiterate) and the other abroad.
The Administrator General’s meeting (P.EXH.6) included persons not among the true beneficiaries.
The Defendant falsely stated in his petition that the deceased’s children had no objection, despite excluding them from the process.

✅ Final Holding

The court held that the Defendant obtained letters of administration through fraudulent misrepresentation and deliberate concealment of material facts. As such, the letters of administration are impeached and invalid. The court answered the issue in the negative.

The appropriate reliefs for the parties.

The Court revoked letters of administration granted to the Defendant, Andrew Muwonge, after finding that the grant had been obtained through concealment and without the consent of other beneficiaries.

HOLDING

The Court found that the Defendant obtained Letters of Administration fraudulently, in violation of the Succession Act, Cap 268, specifically section 234, which prohibits concealment of material facts when applying for a grant.

The letters, granted on 6 February 2018, were accordingly revoked under section 234 and ordered returned to court for cancellation. The Court noted that under section 337 of the Act, the letters would have lapsed on 31 May 2025 in any event.
Although the Defendant filed an inventory on 20 June 2019, there was no evidence it was filed with leave of court if out of time, contrary to section 273(1) of the Succession Act.
The Court emphasized, citing Abubaker Sebaluma Ganya v Yasmin Nalwoga, SCCA No. 14 of 2017, that even after revocation, an administrator has a residual duty to account for dealings with the estate, in the interest of justice and transparency.
The Defendant had transferred land comprised in Kyadondo Block 245 Plot 326 into his name as administrator. Citing section 188 of the Succession Act, the Court clarified that registration of an administrator on title does not confer personal ownership. As the letters were revoked, the Commissioner Land Registration was directed to cancel the Defendant’s name from the title.
The certificate of title for the estate land is to be surrendered to court, not the Plaintiffs, pending a new grant of letters of administration per section 187 of the Succession Act. Only a lawfully appointed administrator may manage estate property.
Any interested beneficiary may apply through the Administrator General for a fresh grant, subject to a new certificate of no objection.
Distribution of the land among beneficiaries was deferred pending issuance of fresh letters of administration.
While acknowledging fraudulent conduct, the Court declined to award general damages. The Defendant had not registered the property in his personal name, and both parties had expended funds recovering the land. The Court cited Nantege v Mwavu & Anor. (Civil Suit No. 981 of 2021) [2024] UGHCLD 112 and James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General, HCCS No. 13 of 1993, affirming that damages aim to restore the aggrieved party, but opted for each party to bear their own loss.
In line with section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71, and authorities including Impressa Ing. Fortunato Federice v Irene Nabwire (SCCA No. 3 of 2000), the Court held that each party should bear their own costs due to their mutual involvement and expenditure related to the estate.

ORDERS ISSUED:

Declaration that the Defendant unlawfully obtained Letters of Administration;
Revocation and return of Letters of Administration for cancellation;
Cancellation of the Defendant’s name from the land title;
Surrender of the duplicate certificate of title to Court;
Opportunity for fresh grant of Letters of Administration through the Administrator General;
Obligation for the Defendant to account for all dealings with the estate;
No award of general damages;
Each party to bear their own costs.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in this case offers a firm reminder that estate administration is both a fiduciary and procedural undertaking.

Administrators who obtain grants through misrepresentation or sideline other beneficiaries do so at great peril. Equally important, the Court reaffirmed that filing submissions out of time without leave renders them legally void, reinforcing that parties must take deadlines seriously or risk exclusion from the record.

By revoking the fraudulent grant and restoring procedural integrity, the Court safeguarded not only the rights of the rightful beneficiaries but also the credibility of the judicial process in succession matters.

Read the full case below