Mental Illness Alone Not Sufficient to Warrant Appointment to Manage Estate of a Person of Unsound Mind, High Court Rules.

Legal Brief of In the matter of an Application by Sam Mujoobe and Mukiibi Simon to be appointed as personal representatives (Miscellaneous Cause N0. 0001 OF 2025) [2025] UGHC 329 (26 May 2025)

Area of Law: Estate Management of a Person of Unsound Mind

Introduction

To manage the personal estate of a person of unsound mind, one must apply to the High Court and satisfy specific legal requirements, including proving that the person is of unsound mind and that the applicant is a suitable representative.

In its ruling today, the High Court reaffirmed that all three essential grounds must be independently proven before a person can be appointed to manage the estate and welfare of an individual alleged to be of unsound mind, not just mental illness alone, which is often the only ground relied upon.

Facts

The application was brought ex parte by Sam Mujoobe and Mukiibi Simon, seeking orders to have Ms. Eseri Katende declared mentally ill and incapable of managing her own affairs, and to be appointed as her guardians and personal representatives. The application was premised on the Mental Health Act, Civil Procedure Act, Judicature Act, and relevant procedural rules.

Key Legal Issues for Determination:

1. Whether Ms. Eseri Katende is a person with mental illness and incapable of managing her own affairs;

2. Whether Ms. Eseri Katende and the late Joyce Farrell Katende are biological siblings;

3. Whether the applicants are suitable persons to be appointed as guardians or personal representatives of Ms. Eseri Katende.

   
   

Court's Findings:

✅ 1. Proof of Mental Illness – Satisfied

The Court found sufficient medical evidence, including a psychiatric report from Mulago Hospital dated 4th December 2024, diagnosing Ms. Katende with intellectual disability and depression. Relying on Section 2 and Section 54 of the Mental Health Act and guided by prior precedents (Thomas Ibokit and Songolo Difasi Mugabo), the Court accepted this as conclusive proof of mental illness.

“Nobody should be adjudged to be of unsound mind without professional expert advice.” – Justice Eva Luswata in Songolo Difasi Mugabo.

❌ 2. Proof of Sibling Relationship – Not Satisfied

The applicants asserted that Ms. Eseri Katende was a biological sister to the late Joyce Farrell Katende, whose estate was the main subject of concern. However, the Court noted that:

1. No birth or baptism certificate of Joyce Farrell Katende was provided;

2. The death certificate of Joyce lacked a place of birth;

3. No credible link was established between the applicants, Joyce, and Ms. Katende.

Accordingly, the claimed family relationship—and Ms. Katende’s beneficial interest in Joyce's estate—was not proven.

❌ 3. Suitability of the Applicants – Not Proven

While the applicants claimed to be cousins and to have cared for Ms. Katende over time, the Court found:

1. No credible evidence of family endorsement or biological connection;

2. Suspicious receipts allegedly showing care-related expenses, some with date alterations;

3. No property in Ms. Katende’s name to be managed.

As such, the applicants failed to prove they were suitable persons for appointment.

Conclusion:

Despite establishing that Ms. Katende suffers from mental illness, the application was dismissed due to failure to prove the other two essential grounds.

The ruling emphasises that all three grounds must be satisfactorily established—mental illness, family connection to the estate, and applicant suitability—before the Court can grant such orders.

Key Takeaway: Applications under the Mental Health Act for management of the affairs of persons with mental illness must be supported by: Conclusive medical evidence, Proof of entitlement or legal interest in the subject’s estate, and Evidence of fitness and integrity of the applicants.