“While the Plaintiff Lacked Locus Standi, the Defendant’s Failure to File an Inventory Justified Revocation of Letters of Administration — High Court at Kampala Rules”
- Waboga David
- Oct 25
- 5 min read
FACTS
The Plaintiff, Ismail Kintu, filed a suit against Ben Mwanje, seeking revocation of Letters of Administration granted in Administration Cause No. 554 of 1991 for the estate of the late Francis Kintu.
The plaintiff averred that he was an outright beneficiary of Francis Kintu's estate as a lineal descendant. The defendant, Ben Mwanje (DW1), was Gerald Kintu's brother and a joint administrator of Francis Kintu's estate, granted Letters of Administration on 20 November 1991 (Administration Cause No. 554 of 1991) alongside the late Lubowa Francis (who died in 1996). The defendant continued administering the estate solely thereafter without court authority or beneficiary consent.
The Defendant denied these allegations, asserting that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi because he was not the biological son of the late Gerald Kintu. A DNA test had earlier indicated no biological relationship between the Plaintiff and the Kintu family. All beneficiaries of the late Francis Kintu had already received their shares of the estate.
The plaintiff sought revocation of the Letters of Administration, surrender of the grant, a true accounting and equitable distribution, recovery of his share and estate income, injunctions, and various damages.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Plaintiff, Counsel Akampurira Jude and Kabazi Richard
For the Defendant, Counsel Asiimwe Mugumya
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute this suit.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the share of the late Gerald Kintu in the estate of the late Francis Kintu.
Whether there is just cause to revoke the Letters of Administration held by the Defendant.
What remedies are available to the parties.
SUBMISSIONS
Plaintiff’s Submissions
On locus standi
The plaintiff, as a lineal descendant and child of Gerald Kintu, had sufficient interest under Lakwo Roy & Odur Wanlonya v. Santa Sarah Ocen [Civil Appeal No. 0086 of 2018], where sufficient interest requires an actual, current infringement of legal rights. Children and descendants are presumed beneficiaries under succession law.
On entitlement to share
As a beneficiary via Gerald's undistributed portion, he was entitled to equitable recovery.
On revocation
The defendant's non-compliance with court orders (e.g., Miscellaneous Application No. 280 of 2017 for citation and surrender) and failure to file inventory (per Section 273(1) Succession Act) constituted contempt and just cause for revocation under Section 230(1)(e). Cited Mary Nakayima v. Najjemba Birabwa [HCCS No. 36 of 2005] and Mukisa Patrick & Anor v. Nabukalu Rebecca [HCCS No. 29 of 2016].
Remedies:
Full suite of prayers, including damages for exclusion and neglect.
Defendant’s Submissions
The Defendant’s counsel maintained that the Plaintiff was not a biological child of the late Gerald Kintu and thus had no legal capacity to sue.
They relied on the expunged DNA report, which allegedly indicated that the Plaintiff was not related to the Kintu lineage.
The Defendant also argued that all beneficiaries had received their shares and that the Plaintiff’s claims were speculative.
COURT’S FINDINGS
Issue 1: Locus Standi
The Court defined locus standi as “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., 2004), requiring “direct or sufficient interest” (Njau & Ors v City Council of Nairobi [1976–1985] 1 EA 397; Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Anor [HCCA No. 17 of 2016]).
To establish locus, a claimant must disclose a cause of action by showing that:(a) a right existed;(b) it was violated; and(c) the defendant is liable (Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd [SC Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001]).
The Court further reaffirmed that beneficiaries have locus to protect estates (Israel Kabwa v Martin Banoba Mugisah [SCCA No. 52 of 1995]).
However, the plaintiff failed to prove paternity. There was no birth certificate (prima facie evidence under Section 114(1) of the Children Act), and no marriage presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. In Gasa Zoe Atara & Anor v Moreen Namara Kalema [HCMA No. 1205 of 2023], the Court observed that:
“Any child born during wedlock is presumed to be the seed of the husband. This presumption does not apply to unmarried cohabitants.”
PW2 confirmed that no marriage existed, and the plaintiff abandoned DNA or exhumation procedures.
The Court held:
“It is trite law that he who alleges must prove... save for the plaintiff’s witnesses’ testimonies, no cogent evidence has been presented to prove that the plaintiff is biologically related to the late Gerald Kintu.[36] In light of the aforementioned, the plaintiff does not equally qualify as a lineal descendant of the late Francis Kintu... In the premises, I find that the plaintiff is neither a child nor a beneficiary of the late Gerald Kintu and as such lacks locus to bring this suit.”
Issue 2: Entitlement to Share
This claim failed consequentially:
“The plaintiff is not entitled to any beneficial share... since the plaintiff is neither a child nor a lineal descendant.”
Issue 3: Just Cause for Revocation
Despite the locus defect, revocation was warranted. Section 230(1)(e) of the Succession Act mandates revocation for willful omission to file an inventory—required within six months (Kembabazi Angella v Barugahare Silvano [HCCS No. 63 of 2019]).
DW1 admitted non-filing since 1992, with no justification. The Court stated:
“Whereas the plaintiff lacks locus standi, the same does not justify the defendant’s inability to fulfill his obligations... failure to file an inventory is a just cause for revocation... the filing of an inventory is a court order premised on the wording of the grant, the breach of which is punishable... In the premises, it is my considered opinion that just cause has been furnished to warrant the revocation of the letters of administration.”
Issue 4: Remedies
Addressed in the holding below.
Holding
The suit is dismissed; the plaintiff’s claims for shares, accounts, damages, and other reliefs fail for lack of locus.
The Letters of Administration (Administration Cause No. 554 of 1991) granted to the defendant for the estate of the late Francis Kintu are revoked for failure to file an inventory under Section 230(1)(e) of the Succession Act.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Key Takeaways
In succession claims involving unmarried parents, mere testimony is insufficient; courts require documentary proof (e.g., birth certificates) or scientific evidence (e.g., DNA). Presumptions apply only to valid marriages (pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant). Parties should pursue DNA testing early to avoid abandonment prejudices.
Locus Standi in Estate Disputes
Lineal descendants have standing to protect beneficial interests without prior letters for intermediate estates (Israel Kabwa precedent), but must prove descent on a balance of probabilities. Lack of standing dooms personal claims but does not shield administrators from public duties.
Mandatory Inventory Filing
Administrators must strictly comply with timelines (six months for inventory, one year for accounts) under the Succession Act. Non-compliance is "just cause" for revocation, irrespective of challenger standing (Kembabazi Angella). Failure since 1992 here triggered mandatory revocation—administrators should document filings proactively.
Broader Implications for Succession Practice
Post-2022 Succession Act amendments emphasize equitable distribution and accountability. Beneficiaries (even non-parties) may cite similar failures in future applications. Courts may refer to mediation before evidence, but unfulfilled undertakings (e.g., DNA) weigh against claimants.
Read the full case
.jpg)
Comments