High Court Upholds Partial Right of Survivorship in Jointly Owned Land but Mandates Co-Administration for Estate Fairness in Succession Dispute

Facts

The plaintiff, Yunia Harriet Elon Gwokibulira Ssali (the widow), and the late Kizza Ssali John (the deceased) were legally married on May 22, 1982, at St. Paul’s Cathedral, Namirembe, and cohabited for over 35 years until the deceased’s death on November 30, 2017, from pulmonary embolism and systemic hypertension.

The deceased died intestate, survived by his widow and nine children:

1. Hellen Nalukwago Ssali Kalema (adult, biological daughter of the plaintiff),

2. Godfrey Luyimbazi (adult),

3. Tinah Nakibuule Nassali (adult),

4. Ronald Mayinja (adult),

5. Ritah Namuddu (adult),

6. Moses Luyimbazi (adult),

7. Sarah Esther Nakanjako (adult),

8. Edward Muwanga Ssali (adult), and

9. Ritah Nakabugo Balinoonya (minor, aged 15).

At the time of death, the couple resided at Kitegombwa, Nangabo, Kasangati, Wakiso District, on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 121 Plot 2670 (approximately 2.224 hectares, reduced to about 4 acres after a 1.48-acre portion was sold to a neighbour, Senyondwa).

The plaintiff petitioned for letters of administration on March 19, 2021 (Administrative Cause No. 324 of 2021), advertising the application in the New Vision newspaper. However, on April 9, 2021, seven stepchildren (defendants 1–7) lodged a caveat, alleging non-disclosure of estate assets, the plaintiff’s unfitness to administer, and doubts over Hellen Nalukwago’s paternity.

The defendants, stepchildren from the deceased’s prior relationships, claimed the plaintiff failed to notify them of the petition, concealed properties, and fraudulently transferred joint titles into her sole name during prior litigation (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2018, later withdrawn).

They counterclaimed for:

(i) a DNA test on Hellen Nalukwago;

(ii) full disclosure of assets;

(iii) declarations on estate properties (including joint lands, 40 shares in JH Floricultural Growers Ltd, and livestock);

(iv) the plaintiff’s unfitness; and

(v) appointment of defendants 1 and 2 as co-administrators.

Agreed facts included:

1. The deceased’s intestate death;

2. Survival by the widow and nine children;

3. The plaintiff’s prior petition (Administrative Cause No. 366 of 2018, later withdrawn after caveat); and

4. Ownership of Plot 2670 and 40 shares in JH Floricultural Growers Ltd.

Evidence revealed family estrangement: the defendants had limited contact with the deceased (one defendant sent UGX 500,000 via mobile money in April 2017), and the deceased’s 2011 letter to Hellen Nalukwago expressed disappointment in his other children.

Issues

1. What constitutes estate property?

2. Whether the defendants validly lodged a caveat?

3. Who should be appointed administrator(s)?

   
   

Submissions

Plaintiff’s Submissions

Estate property is limited to assets available for distribution under the Administrator General’s Act, s. 1(c). Only Plot 2670 qualifies. Plots 50/51 and Bulemezi Plot 424 were joint tenancies with right of survivorship (Registration of Titles Act (RTA), s. 56; Tumwine Wills & 2 Ors v. Asiimwe Wilson HC MBRA No. 0009 of 2023).

 The caveat is misconceived (Succession Act, s. 249) as defendants lack caveatable interest and aim to frustrate administration.

As surviving spouse with priority (Succession Act, ss. 192, 199), the plaintiff is fit and proper.

Defendants’ Submissions

The estate extends to all assets under Succession Act, s. 24 (Re Estate of George William Ssebagala, HCCS No. 74 of 2013).

The caveat is valid under Succession Act, s. 253 (Re Estate of Baatakan Ayazika Yokusni, HC FD AC No. 80 of 2022).

Plaintiff’s conduct (non-disclosure, alleged fraud) renders her unfit; seek co-administration for impartiality.

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff,  Norah Matovu (Matovu & Co. Advocates)

• Defendants, Kigongo Kassim and Siraje Katantaze (Senkumba & Co. Advocates)

Court’s Findings

Hon. Lady Justice Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga delivered a well-reasoned judgment that addressed each issue comprehensively. The Court emphasized that determinations in matters of intestate succession and estate administration must be guided by statutory provisions, documentary proof, and the equitable duty to ensure fairness among beneficiaries.

Citing sections 101–103 of the Evidence Act, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a fact, and the standard applicable in civil matters is the balance of probabilities, as affirmed in Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General SCCA No. 28 of 1993.

Issue 1: What Constitutes Estate Property

The Court began by defining the scope of “estate property” under section 20 of the Succession Act and section 1 of the Administrator General’s Act, holding that it includes all movable and immovable property of the deceased that was owned in his personal capacity at the time of death and is capable of transmission to successors.

Her Ladyship noted that where property is held jointly, the right of survivorship (jus accrescendi) operates to exclude such property from the estate unless evidence shows a contrary intention or severance before death.

The Court analyzed each asset:

(a) Kyadondo Block 121 Plots 50 & 51 – The Matrimonial Home and Burial Site

Evidence adduced indicated that these two parcels of land were registered in the joint names of the deceased, Kizza Ssali John, and his wife, the plaintiff, Yunia Harriet Elon Gwokibulira Ssali. The certificate of title (PExh. 2) clearly reflected joint ownership.

Relying on sections 56 and 192 of the Registration of Titles Act, and comparative authority such as Burton v Camden LBC [2000] 2 AC 399, the Court held that a joint tenancy creates unity of title, time, interest, and possession, with survivorship as its central feature. Therefore, upon the death of one joint tenant, the interest automatically vests in the survivor and does not form part of the deceased’s estate.

Her Ladyship observed that the couple cohabited on this property for over 35 years, raised their children there, and that the deceased was buried on the same land.

These facts evidenced the intention to hold the property jointly as matrimonial property.

“In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the deceased intended to co-own the land in question with his wife as joint tenants. Upon his demise, the deceased’s interest was extinguished and the same was fully survived by the plaintiff, save for the portion where the residential holding and the burial ground of the deceased sits.”

However, invoking section 22 of the Succession Act, which safeguards the residential holding and burial ground of a deceased person, the Court held that those specific portions should be preserved for the benefit of lineal descendants and not fall solely under the widow’s ownership.

Accordingly, the Court found that the two plots do not constitute estate property, except for the portions accommodating the residential home and the burial site.

(b) Bulemezi Block 153 Plot 424

The plaintiff produced a duplicate certificate of title showing joint registration of this land between herself and the deceased. The defendants presented no evidence of severance or separate ownership. Applying the same reasoning as above, the Court held that the joint tenancy operated to transfer full ownership to the plaintiff by survivorship.

The Court further relied on Tumwine Wills & 2 Ors v Asiimwe Wilson HC MBRA No. 0009 of 2023, where it was held that “the mere fact that the property was purchased using family resources does not defeat the legal effect of a registered joint tenancy.”

Hence, Bulemezi Block 153 Plot 424 was excluded from the estate.

(c) 40 Shares in J.H. Floricultural Growers Ltd

Both parties agreed that the deceased was one of the founding directors and shareholders in J.H. Floricultural Growers Ltd, holding 40 out of 100 issued shares.

The Court examined the company’s annual returns, memorandum, and articles of association (particularly Article 9), which stipulated that the shares of a deceased member shall vest in his or her legal representative.

The plaintiff contended that the shares were unpaid and non-transferable; however, the Court found no documentary evidence supporting this assertion. Instead, the company’s filings with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) confirmed that the deceased remained a shareholder until his death.

:“I am convinced that the deceased owned 40% shareholding in J.H. Floriculture Growers Limited; hence the said shareholding forms part of the estate.”

The Court thus held that the deceased’s 40% shareholding forms part of the estate and shall be administered accordingly.

(d) Gungu and Nalugala Lands (Corporate Property)

The properties at Gungu (Block 121 Plot 214) and Nalugala (Block 436 Plot 671) were registered in the name of J.H. Floricultural Growers Ltd. The defendants argued that these were effectively personal investments of the deceased through his company.

The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the doctrine of separate corporate personality under Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 and section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, which provides that registration confers indefeasible title upon the registered proprietor.

“Owing to the company’s separate legal personality, it can own property in its own name and shareholders cannot lay any claim to the same.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the company’s land does not form part of the deceased’s estate, but the deceased’s shares in the company do.

(e) Kikaya House (Block 207 Plot 289)

Evidence showed that this house was formerly the matrimonial home but was later transferred to the deceased’s daughter, Hellen Nalukwago Ssali Kalema.

The Court noted that there was no evidence that the deceased retained a legal or beneficial interest in the property at the time of his death.

Consequently, Kikaya House was excluded from the estate.

(f) Friesian Cows

The defendants alleged that the deceased owned four Friesian cows at the time of his death. However, no receipts, livestock records, or credible testimony were provided. The Court found that the claim was speculative and therefore dismissed it.

(g) Plot 2670 – The Kitegombwa Property

The parties agreed that Kyadondo Block 121 Plot 2670, measuring approximately 2.224 hectares (4 acres net after partial sale), was solely registered in the name of the deceased and formed his primary estate asset. The Court held that this property forms part of the estate to be administered.

Issue 2: Whether the Caveat Was Validly Lodged

The Court turned to sections 249 and 251(2) of the Succession Act, which empower any person claiming a right in an estate to lodge a caveat prior to the grant of letters of administration.

The defendants, being biological children of the deceased, clearly fell within the category of beneficiaries. The Court noted that their caveat, dated April 9, 2021, was prompted by the plaintiff’s omission to disclose the deceased’s shareholding in J.H. Floricultural Growers Ltd and other alleged assets.

Relying on Genuine Estate (U) Ltd v Nanyanga Florence HCMC No. 0011 of 2025 and Re Estate of the Late Baatakan Ayazika Yokusni HC FD AC No. 80 of 2022, the Court held that a caveat serves the purpose of protecting a party’s beneficial interest and ensuring transparency before the grant is issued.

“The defendants had just cause for lodging the said caveat so as to aid in the protection of their beneficial interest… This issue is resolved in the affirmative.”

Accordingly, the Court found that the caveat was validly and lawfully lodged.

Issue 3: Who Should Be Appointed Administrator(s)

Under section 199 of the Succession Act, a surviving spouse ordinarily has the first right to be appointed administrator. However, this right is not absolute and may be limited by considerations of impartiality, competence, or fairness to other beneficiaries.

The Court found that the plaintiff was a fit and proper person to administer the estate given her long marriage to the deceased, her knowledge of his affairs, and her demonstrated management of family property.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged the deep-seated family estrangement between the widow and the deceased’s older children, noting that the latter were kept unaware of the administration petition and some estate assets.

Citing Hellen Okello v Akello Jennifer Ocan HCCA No. 84 of 2019 and Gladys Ella Felser Omella v Nicholas Etieng & Anor (1994) KALR 98, the Court held that co-administration is necessary in circumstances where family division may compromise impartial administration.

“It would only be just that one representative among the defendants is selected to co-administer the estate alongside the widow to foster transparency, impartiality, and unity.”

On the defendants’ prayer for a DNA test to confirm the paternity of Hellen Nalukwago, the Court dismissed it, invoking section 112 of the Evidence Act and section 114(1) of the Children Act, which presume legitimacy for a child born within a lawful marriage unless the contrary is proven.

“There is no evidence that the deceased ever denied paternity during his lifetime. I therefore see no need for conducting a DNA test.”

Summary of the Court’s Determinations

1. Estate Property

   • Included: Plot 2670 (Kitegombwa property) and 40% shareholding in J.H. Floricultural Growers Ltd.

   • Excluded: Kyadondo Block 121 Plots 50 & 51 (save for residential/burial portion), Bulemezi Block 153 Plot 424, Gungu and Nalugala corporate properties, Kikaya house, and Friesian cows.

2. Caveat: Validly lodged by the deceased’s children to safeguard beneficial interests.

3. Administration: The plaintiff to remain an administrator, joined by the 1st defendant as co-administrator, to ensure fairness and transparency.

Key Takeaways

1. Joint Tenancy Presumption Strong but Rebuttable

   Right of survivorship prevails absent intent for tenancy in common; residential/burial portions may devolve under Succession Act, s. 22.

2. Omissions in petitions invite caveats and findings of unfitness.

3. Beneficiaries have locus to caveat to protect interests.

4. Corporate Veil Intact

   Estates claim shares, not company assets.

5. Courts may appoint co-administrators to ensure impartiality.

6. No DNA tests without prior denial.

7. Administrators should disclose all assets; beneficiaries should lodge caveats promptly.

Read the full case

Yunia Harriet Elon Gwokibulira Ssali v Godfrey Luyimbazi and Others 2025 UGHCFD 172 (7 Nov.

Download • 1.01MB