[1992] UGHC 4
The court found that the defendant failed to prove she was the widow of the deceased, as there was no evidence of marriage, cohabitation, or any customary union with the deceased. Having children by the deceased does not confer widowhood status. The plaintiffs, having obtained a letter of no objection from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] UGHC 4
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Erinesti Babumba; Plaintiff: Keti Namyalo; Plaintiff: Edward Bamujje; Defendant: Ester Nakasi Kizito
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No. 173 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment_for_plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Letters of Administration, Succession Act Application, Caveat Removal, Widowhood Claim, Priority of Grant, Customary Law Relations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Erinesti Babumba
Plaintiff
Keti Namyalo
Plaintiff
Edward Bamujje
Plaintiff
Ester Nakasi Kizito
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is legally recognized as the widow of the deceased for purposes of priority in grant of Letters of Administration.
- 2 Whether the caveat lodged by the defendant against the plaintiffs' application for Letters of Administration should be removed.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration for the estate of the late Erifasi Kizito.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant failed to prove she was the widow of the deceased, as there was no evidence of marriage, cohabitation, or any customary union with the deceased. Having children by the deceased does not confer widowhood status. The plaintiffs, having obtained a letter of no objection from the Administrator General and being selected by the family, satisfied the statutory requirements for the grant of Letters of Administration. The caveat lodged by the defendant was therefore baseless and ordered to be removed. The plaintiffs were granted Letters of Administration to administer the estate of the late Erifasi Kizito.
Court Disposition
judgment_for_plaintiffs
Orders
- The caveat lodged by the defendant is removed.
- Letters of Administration are granted to the two surviving plaintiffs to administer the estate of the late Erifasi Kizito.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
2 paragraphs
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f248\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f249\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f251\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f252\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f253\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f254\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f255\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f256\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid6297286 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid812848\rsid4271487\rsid6297286\rsid8541314\rsid11626573\rsid14251809\rsid14645594\rsid15423493}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UNUA }{\author DELL} {\operator skivumbi}{\creatim\yr2009\mo10\dy29\hr17\min2}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy6\hr13\min22}{\version4}{\edmins17}{\nofpages4}{\nofwords901}{\nofchars5138}{\nofcharsws6027}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot6297286\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid812848 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 THE REPUBLIC }{ \ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 OF UGANDA}{\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 \line IN }{\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 T}{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 HE HIGH COURT OF}{\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 UGANDA}{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 }{\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 AT KAMP}{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 A}{\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 LA \line CIVIL SUIT NO. 173 OF 1987}{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6297286 {\insrsid8541314 E}{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 LINE}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 STI BABUMBA & TWO OTHERS }{ \insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 PLAINTIFFS }{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \fi720\li2880\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0\pararsid812848 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 VERSUS }{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid812848 {\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 ESTER NAKASI }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 KIZITO}{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 DEFENDANT}{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6297286 {\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 BEFORE: }{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 THE HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO \par }\pard \s15\qj \fi720\li2880\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0\pararsid812848 {\ul\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 JUDGMENT:}{\ul\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6297286 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 This suit arose from a contentious application for grant of Letters of administration of the Estate of the late Er}{\insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 ifasi Kizito. It was brought in }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 accordance with section 265}{ \i\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 of the succession Act. The three Plaintiffs were the Petitioners for grant of Letters of Administration in administration cause No. 202/86. They petitioned for the grant a}{ \insrsid812848\charrsid4271487 s}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 brother, nephew and niece of the deceased respectively. The caveator who claimed to be the widow of the deceased}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 is the defendant in the suit. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 In the s}{\insrsid8541314 uit, the Plaintiffs sought for:-}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8541314 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 (1) An order to }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 remove the defendant\rquote s caveat. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 (2) An order grantin}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 g to the plaintiffs letters of Administration and \par (3) Cost of the suit. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6297286 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 When the case came up for hearing before me on 8/4/92, the plaintiffs and their counsel appeared but neither the def}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 endant nor her counsel appeared.}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 No explanation was given for their absence yet there was evidence of due service of Hearing Notice on the defen}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 dant personally. A similar app}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 lication for grant of Letters of administration of the Estate of the same deceased was filed by the de}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 fendant in the Chief Magistrate\rquote s c}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ourt of Mengo under administration cause No. 79/86. The present Plaintiffs lodged a caveat a}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 gainst the grant of Letters of a}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dministration of the Estate of the deceased in that }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 application}{ \insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 as a similar application was pending in the High Court. The application in th}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 e Chief Magistrate\rquote s court of Me}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ngo was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution under }{\b\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 0.15 r. 6 of the}{\b\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 CPR. \par }{\b\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 In the instant case, after satisfying myself that there was satisfactory evidence of service of the }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 Hearing}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 Notice on the defendant, I allowed the application by counsel for the Plaintiffs that }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 the hearing of this suit should proceed ex-parte }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 unde}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 r 0.9 r.17 (1) (a) of the CPR. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 At the hearing, I was informed that the first p}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 laintiff}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 Erinesti Babumba had died in 1987 leaving only two plaintiffs. Hearing therefore proceeded w}{ \insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 ith only two plaintiffs, Edward}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 B}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 amujje, 2}{\super\insrsid14251809\charrsid8541314 nd}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 plaintiff, gave evid}{ \insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ence as PW1. In his evidence Bamujje told court }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 that at a meeting which was held}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 after the death of the deceased, by elders and the children of the deceased, Erinesti Babumba, Keti Namyalo and himself were selected to apply for Letters of }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 Administration to A}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dminister the Est}{\insrsid8541314 ate of the deceased Erifasi Kizi}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 to according to law. That an earlier such meeting had appointed him a customary heir of the deceased. That following the }{ \insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 authorization}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 by that meeting they approached the office of the }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 Administrator General which gave them a l}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 etter of No abjection dated 19/6/86. That armed with that letter of No objection, they petitioned for }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 grant of Letters of Administration to enable them A}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dminister}{ \insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 the Estate of the late Erifasi}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 Kizito according to law. }{\i\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 That the deceased was not married to any }{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 woman customarily or otherwise b}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ut that he was survived by nine children whom he got from six different women friends. T}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 hat the defendant was one of those six women friends of the deceased }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 and had mothered two children K}{\insrsid14251809\charrsid4271487 itengeza and Nabibubu Florence. }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 That the defendant never stayed together with the deceased. T}{\insrsid11626573\charrsid4271487 hat she stays at Bugerere. Bam}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ujje further testified that a lady called Dorothy Nabazziwa also mothered three children for the deceased but that he never lived together with her. Keti Namyalo PW2 c}{ \insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 orroborated the evidence of Bam}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ujje (PW1) in all material particulars.}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 From the above evidence Mr}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 . Balikuddembe counsel for the}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 Plaintiffs prayed that the defendant\rquote s caveat}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 be removed and the Letters of Ad}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 ministration granted to the two surviving plaintiffs to }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 administer}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 the Estate of the deceased Eri}{ \insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 f}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 a}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 s}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 i Ki}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 zito. }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 That there }{ \insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 should be no order as to cost. \par Under section 6 of the Administrator General Act}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 no grant of Letters of}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 Administration}{\b\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 shall be made to any person except an executor appointed by will or to a widower or a widow until the applicant}{\b\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 has produce}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 d to the court proof that the A}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dministrator General or its }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 agent}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 has declined to administer the Estate or proof that Notice of at least 14 cl}{ \insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 ear days has been given to the A}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dministrator General of inte}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 ntion to apply for such grant. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 In the instant case, there is sufficient }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 evidence that the Administrator G}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 eneral has declined to administer}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 the Estate of this deceased. T}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 he Letter of No objection issued to the Plaintiffs from that office on 19/6/86 is evidence of that decl}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 ine. It is on the court record. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 It is the law that when considering grant of Letters of Administration, the widower or widow of the deceased takes }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 precedence}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 over all other relatives of the deceased. This is covered under section}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 6 of the Administrator General\rquote s Act. \par }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 In the instant case, there is contention for grant of Letters of }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 A}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 dministration between the plaintiffs and the defendant who claims to be the widow of the deceased. Under the pr}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 ovision of the above section of }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 the Administrator General\rquote s Act, the defendant should take precedence}{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 over the plaintiffs in }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 consideration for th is grant if only it can be shown that she is infact a widow of the deceased. Unfortunately no evidence was adduced to show that she was married to the deceased either customarily or at all or that she was }{\insrsid15423493\charrsid4271487 cohabitating with the deceased at}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 the time of his death. Having a child or children by the deceased is not enough to confer on the women widowhood. In the absence of the above type of evidence, the defendant\rquote s issue of widowhood is not proved. In the circumstanc}{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 es her }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 claim must fail. Consequently the caveat which she had lodged against the plaintiffs}{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 \rquote }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 application must be removed and}{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 the Letters of Administration granted to the }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 two surviving Pla}{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 intiffs. Judgment is therefore }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 given to the Plaintiffs in those terms. No order is made as to cos}{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 ts of this suit.}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 }{\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487
\par \par }\pard \s15\qj \li6480\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid14645594 {\insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\insrsid4271487 ..}{ \insrsid14645594\charrsid4271487 G. M. OKELLO \line JUDGE}{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 \line }{\i\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 13/4/92 \line }{\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6297286 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6297286\charrsid4271487 \par }}