The High Court Has Reaffirmed the Legal Principle That a Party Purporting to Represent a Deceased Person’s Estate Must First Obtain Letters of Administration to Acquire the Legal Capacity to Sue.

Waboga David
May 5
2 min read

Brief of Lwanyikirira v Administrator General (Miscellaneous Application No. 2298 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 247 (30 April 2025)

Area of Law: Civil Procedure- Succession Law

Introduction

The High Court has dismissed both an application for amendment of the plaint and the underlying suit in Civil Suit No. 477 of 2019 for want of locus standi (capacity to sue).

The Plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to introduce allegations of fraud in the creation of certificates of title for land situated on Kyadondo Block 124 Plots 4 and 17, and to join the Commissioner for Land Registration as a co-defendant.

Facts

The Plaintiffs claimed the suit land belonged to the estate of the late Musa Musoke Kiwumumpu, who died intestate, and alleged that the land was unlawfully registered in the name of the Administrator General as part of the estate of Yosiya Bwangalaga Kizza Tabula.

However, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had not obtained letters of administration to represent the estate of the deceased Musa Musoke Kiwumumpu.

Therefore, this meant that they lacked legal standing to sue or bring the application, as required under section 187 of the Succession Act, Cap 268.

Court Holding

The High Court dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint and dismissed the main suit on the following grounds:

The Applicants had no legal capacity to sue over the suit land because they had not obtained letters of administration for the estate of the late Musa Musoke Kiwumumpu, whose interests they purported to represent.
Citing section 187 of the Succession Act, the Court emphasized that no right to a deceased’s property can be established in court without first obtaining letters of administration.
The application to amend the plaint, brought five years after the suit was filed, would cause unfair prejudice to the Defendant, especially since the trial was already set and the parties had exchanged witness statements and trial bundles.
The proposed amendment sought to introduce allegations of fraud that had not been pleaded in the original plaint, which amounted to a new cause of action that was not part of the initial claim. The Court held this was impermissible at that stage of proceedings.
The Court also found that the Commissioner Land Registration was not a necessary party to the suit. The Plaintiffs could have called relevant officials as witnesses if needed, without making them parties.

Key Takeaways

A party purporting to represent a deceased person’s estate must first obtain letters of administration to acquire the legal capacity to sue.
Amendments introducing new causes of action (e.g., fraud) are impermissible where such claims were not originally pleaded and materially alter the nature of the suit.
The court held that the Commissioner Land Registration was not a necessary party, and the attempt to add them after five years would cause undue delay and prejudice.
The suit and application were filed in 2019 and only brought to hearing in 2024, five years later. The delay contributed to the Court’s conclusion that the proceedings were not brought bona fide.