The property of a deceased intestate cannot be directly claimed in court without obtaining letters of administration. Even rightful heirs must pursue succession proceedings, High Court in Kabale Rules

Waboga David
Oct 4
4 min read

Facts

The respondent, Ndihoreye Juliet, is a biological daughter of the late Marari Mugisha, who died intestate when she was approximately 8 years old. Following Marari's death, the respondent's brother (Serugyendo, aged 5) and sister (Night Joy, an infant) also perished in a house fire. The suit land, previously owned by Marari, came under dispute when the appellant, Buzandora Charles, an elder brother of the deceased Marari, began constructing a house on it without permission.

The respondent, upon reaching adulthood, demanded possession of the land as part of her father's estate. The appellant claimed ownership based on a gift deed from his late father (who was also the grandfather of the respondent). A second defendant in the lower court (another brother of the deceased) denied transferring the land to the appellant.

In the lower court (Kisoro Grade I Magistrate), the respondent sued for declarations that the land belonged to Marari's estate, that she was entitled to it as his daughter, that the appellant was a trespasser, and for orders of vacant possession, general damages (for denial of use, mental anguish, and inconvenience), and costs.

The trial focused on competing claims, whether the land belonged to Marari's estate or was gifted to the appellant.

Issues

Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
Whether the magistrate erred in disregarding inconsistencies in the respondent’s case.
Whether failure to admit the appellant’s agreement (gift deed) prejudiced him.
Whether the trial magistrate wrongly granted ownership of the land to the respondent without reference to succession law.

Legal Representation

Appellant was represented by Rev. Bikangiso Ezra holding brief for Patience Nasiima.
Respondent was represented by Davis Tayebwa.

Submissions

The appellant's submissions primarily attacked the Trial Magistrate's appraisal of evidence and rejection of the gift deed from the appellant's late father. The appellant argued that the lower court overlooked inconsistencies in the respondent's testimony and exhibited bias by not admitting the gift deed, especially since the appellant was unrepresented.

No detailed submissions from the respondent are outlined in the judgment, but the High Court reviewed the lower court's record, which supported the respondent's claim based on her status as Marari's daughter and the dismissal of the appellant's gift claim.

The High Court noted that while the lower court's findings on evidence had a basis, they contravened the Succession Act by directly awarding the land without requiring letters of administration for the intestate estate.

Court's Findings

The court noted that the Trial Magistrate, Vueni Raphael, found that the suit land belonged to the estate of the late Marari Mugisha. He declared the respondent entitled to it as Marari's biological daughter, labeled the appellant a trespasser, ordered vacant possession, awarded general damages of UGX 4,000,000 for denial of use, mental anguish, and inconvenience, and granted costs to the respondent. The gift deed tendered by the appellant was dismissed, and the second defendant's denial of any transfer to the appellant was accepted.

The appellate court upheld the lower court's factual findings on ownership (i.e., the land as part of Marari's intestate estate) and the invalidity of the appellant's claim. However, it identified an error in law: the lower court failed to invoke the Succession Act, specifically Sections 20 (defining intestate property) and 187 (requiring letters of administration before establishing rights to intestate property).

The High Court emphasized that no rights to intestate property can be established without letters of administration. It also invoked Sections 16 and 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act to exercise supervisory powers, prevent abuse of process, and avoid multiple suits by converting aspects of the case into an administration cause. Reference was made to precedent in Kiiza v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 118 of 2025) for using inherent powers to address legislative gaps.

The court found the appeal grounds unmeritorious but modified the orders to comply with succession law, ensuring distribution to all beneficiaries under Sections 23 and 24 of the Succession Act.

Holding

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court maintained the lower court's orders for eviction, demolition of illegal structures, and a permanent injunction against the appellant, his agents, assigns, workmen, and all claiming under him.

However, it modified the declarations and awards as follows, under Sections 80(1)(e) and 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Sections 16(1) and 17(2)(a) of the Judicature Act;

Declarations of entitlement adjusted to benefit all beneficiaries of Marari Mugisha's estate (not solely the respondent).
The respondent must apply to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kisoro for letters of administration to the estate, as she is entitled to the largest share.
The appellant must deposit the UGX 4,000,000 in damages into the Kisoro Chief Magistrate's Court, to be held until letters of administration are granted and the estate distributed to properly identified beneficiaries under Sections 23 and 24 of the Succession Act.
Taxed costs from the lower court are to be deposited similarly until administration and distribution.
No order as to costs in the appeal.

Key Takeaways

Courts cannot directly award intestate property without letters of administration under Section 187 of the Succession Act. Litigants claiming inheritance must first obtain such letters to establish rights, preventing premature distributions and ensuring all beneficiaries are identified per Sections 23 and 24.
The High Court can modify lower court orders to correct legal errors, even beyond stated appeal grounds, using powers under the Judicature Act (Sections 16 and 17) to prevent abuse of process and promote efficiency (e.g., converting suits into administration causes to avoid multiplicity of litigation).
Claims based on gift deeds or family transfers require robust evidence; inconsistencies or unadmitted documents can lead to dismissal. Unrepresented parties should be cautious, as courts may not exhibit bias but will strictly evaluate evidence.
Beneficiaries, especially in family disputes over land, should prioritize administration causes over ordinary civil suits for efficient resolution. Delays in administration can tie up damages and costs in court deposits.

Read the full case below