[2025] UGHCFD 66

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (FAMILY DIVISION)**

## **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 4032 OF 2025.**

#### **(ARISING OUT OF ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO.0160 OF 2013)**

**1. GGINGO KITYO MUGULUMA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS**

**2. NANFUKA ANNET**

#### **VERSUS**

## **1. NAGAYI FLORENCE**

## **2. HAJAT NANFUKA NALUKENGE**

## **3. KASULE SHAFIK**

## **BEFORE: HON LADY JUSTICE IMMACULATE BUSINGYE BYARUHANGA RULING**

#### **Introduction**

This application was brought by way of Notice of Motion under Section 231 of the Succession Act Cap 268, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 and Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 seeking for orders that; -

- 1) THAT this Honourable court be pleased to extend the grant of letters of administration for the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA which was granted to GGINGO KITYO MUGULUMA (NEPHEW) and NANFUKA ANNET (NIECE) on 4th September, 2013 for a further period of two years and or any other reasonable time as determined by court. - 2) THAT leave of court be granted to file a true account of the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA. - 3) THAT any other reliefs the court may deem fit and just to grant.

The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by GGINGO KITYO MUGULUMA on behalf of the co-administrator herein and one of the holders of letters of administration granted vide Administration Cause No.0160 of 2013. The grounds of the application are laid out in the application and the affidavit in support of the application but briefly they are the following;

- 1) THAT the applicants were granted letters of administration on the 4 th September ,2013, the letters expired on 29th May ,2025. - 2) THAT the applicants are the Administrators of the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA. - 3) THAT the applicants have complied with the condition to which the grant of letters of administration was subject to be seeking leave to file an inventory and final account out of time hence this Application. - 4) THAT the Applicants are executing all the administration of the estate property and making transactions on the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA but did not file the inventory and final account as required by law. - 5) THAT the applicants have not yet caused any transfer of ownership into their names, it's still in the name of the deceased AGIRI NANFUKA. - 6) THAT the applicants have not yet distributed the estate property as agreed by the beneficiaries of the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA since the land title is in the custody of someone and has ever refused to surrender it to the Applicants and the title is still in the names of the deceased not yet transferred in the names of the Applicants and beneficiaries. - 7) THAT the applicants delayed to file an inventory and final account in time as stipulated in the grant of letters of administration because they were not certain of the safety of the land title which is not with them causing delay in filing the inventory and final account.

- 8) THAT the applicants since there is still some residual estate that needs further management, the applicants desire extension of the grant hence this Application. - 9) THAT the intends to file the inventory and final account by seeking leave to file in this Honorable court out of time and to give an account of all dealings with the estate thereafter and within which the extension of the grant of letters of Administration. - 10) THAT there is sufficient cause justifying extension, filing inventory out of time and the time within which to file the secondary inventory and final account for the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA be extended. - 11) THAT it would only be fair and just that; - i. The grant of letters of administration vide Administration Cause No.0160 of 2013 for the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA be extended to allow filing the inventory and final account. - ii. The applicant is allowed to file the inventory and final account out of time to enable the applicants administer the estate of the late AGIRI NANFUKA efficiently and effectively without any interruption.

## **Background**

Following the demise of the late **AGIRI NANFUKA** on the 6th day of June, 2009, the applicants herein petitioned this court for Letters of Administration to administer the estate of the deceased on behalf of his beneficiaries. The same was granted on the 4th day of September, 2013 by **Hon. Justice Edmund Sempa Lugayizi**. However, by operation of law under **Section 337 of the Succession Act Cap 268**, the letters have since expired and the same need to be extended and under **Section 273(1) (formerly section 278(1) of the Succession Act** (as amended), the applicants have not filed a final account of the estate within the requisite time, hence this application.

## **Representation**

In the instant application, the applicants were self-represented.

## **Issues for Determination**

In accordance with the applicant's submissions, this court has resolved that the main issues for resolution are, whether *court should extend time to file a true and final account out of time and whether court should extend time for letters of administration /probate to the applicants vide No. 0160 of 2013.*

## **Parties Submissions**

It is the applicant's submission that the applicants did not willfully refuse to file the said final account within the stipulated time but rather have sufficient reasons in which are well elaborated in the application and affidavit in support and that it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed.

## **Preliminaries**

The applicants brought this application under Section 231 of the Succession Act Cap 231 which provides for the inherent powers of this court to grant letters of administration. However, among the prayers sought is extension of the grant and extension of time file inventory which are regulated by Section 337 (2) and (4) of the Succession Act which provides for extension of grants issued before 31st May 2025 as is the case herein and Section 273 (1) of the Succession Act which provides for filing of inventory.

Therefore, there was laxity in the applicability of the correct laws. However, I have observed that the proper laws were cited in the submissions. This notwithstanding, a plethora of authorities have pronounced themselves on the application of the wrong law and procedure and I shall be guided by the same.

I am guided by the case **Tolith Andrew v Dholaga Fred High Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2020,** where the Hon. Lady Justice Faridah Shamilah Bukirwa cited with authority the case of **Saggu versus Road Motor Cycles (U) LTD [2002]1 EA 258,** where it was held that;

*"As far as wrong citation of law is concerned or wrong procedure is concerned, the court restated the law the wrong procedure or wrong citation of law would not invalidate proceedings. It does not go to jurisdiction or cause prejudice to the opposite side. The general law is that where an application does not cite any law at all or cites the wrong law but jurisdiction to grant the order sought exists then, the irregularity or omission can be ignored and the correct law instilled".*

Therefore, the none citation of the proper law shall be excused in the interest of justice and the application shall be considered on its merits.

## **Resolution**

Whether court should extend time to file a true and final account out of time.

The law accommodates enlargement of time owing to the inherent powers of this court as is portrayed in **Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282**, this honorable court may in its discretion from time to time extend a fixed period granted by court when it expires. **Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act** court has inherent power to make such orders as maybe necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process.

Filing of inventory is regulated by **Section 273(1)** (formerly section 278(1)) **of the Succession Act** (as amended) which provides that*:*

*"An executor or executrix or administrator or administratrix shall, within six months from the grant of probate or letters of administration, or within such further time as the court which granted the probate or letters may from time to time appoint, exhibit in that court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession, and all the credits, and also all the*

*debts owing by any person to which the executor or executrix or administrator or administratrix; is entitled in that character; and shall in like manner within one year from the grant, or within such further time as the court may from time to time appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to his or her hands, and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of."*

**Section 273(2***) provides that "on completion of the administration of an estate, other than an estate administered under the Administration of Estates (Small Estates) (Special Provisions) Act, an executor or executrix or an administrator or administratrix shall file in court the final accounts relating to the estate verified by an affidavit two copies of which shall be transmitted by court to the Administrator General."*

In the case of **Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe & others vs Engineer Ephraim Turinawe & Anor – SCCA No. 27 of 2010** provides for 3 questions to be determined before disposing of an application for extension of time like this one. The said questions are;

- *1. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient reasons for the court to extend time* - *2. Whether the Applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct* - *3. Whether any injustice will be caused if the application is not granted.*

Similarly, in the case of **Mugo and ors vs Wanjiru & another [1970] EA 481 at page 484** it was stated that; "*each application must be decided in the particular circumstances of each case but as a general rule, the applicant must satisfactorily explain the reason for delay and should also satisfy court as to whether or not there will be a denial of justice by the refusal or granting of the application" (emphasis on the underlined)*

In the case of **The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salam vs the Chairman Bunju Village Government & Ors** which quoted **Gideon Mosa Onchwati vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Anor [2017] KLR** where it was stated,

*"it is difficult to attempt to define the meaning of the words sufficient cause. It is generally accepted however, that the words should receive a liberal construction in order to advance substantial justice, when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides is imputed to the appellant."*

I agree with the definition of sufficient cause stated above. Courts have the discretion to determine what amounts to sufficient cause and in the cases of estate property, the Applicant must show that the reason for the delay in filing an inventory or final account was beyond his or her control and it was not because of negligence or unreasonable delay.

In the instant case, as argued in their submissions, the applicants raised similar averments in paragraphs 4 -8 of the affidavit in support of the application, wherein it was deponed that the applicants are in the process of transferring the estate property into the names of the administrators and that there is some estate property that is yet to be distributed o. In my view, the aforementioned reasons qualify as sufficient cause to extend time within which to file a final account.

Whether court should extend time for letters of administration /probate to the applicants vide No. 0160 of 2013.

Applications of this nature wherein letters of Administration for the deceased's estate were issued before 31st May 2022, as is in the instant case, where the same were issued on 4th September 2013, are provided for under **Section 337 (2) of the Succession Act Cap 268** which stipulates that;

"A grant of Probate or letters of administration issued by a court of competent jurisdiction before the 31st day of May 2022, shall remain in force for a period of three years from the 31st day of May, 2022".

**Section 337(4) of the Succession Act Cap 268** allows for extensions of grants that fall within the ambits of subsection 2 and it states that**;**

*"The duration of a grant of probate or letters of administration referred to in subsection (2) may on application to court by the administrator or administratrix of an estate, be extended for a reasonable period determined by court."*

I have examined the reasons presented above and I have also observed from the petition for letters for administration vide Administration Cause No. 392 of 2002, the deceased is survived by 5 beneficiaries among them are the two administrators. I have also noted that all the beneficiaries have consented to the instant application for extension of the letters of administration and have equally attached their identification documentation. Though not a requirement of law by virtue of Section 337 of the Succession Act, it is beneficial to have family consent as the same is proof that the beneficiaries of the deceased's estate have endorsed the actions of the executors or administrators of the deceased's estate.

In light of the evidence before me, I am a braced with fact that the estate of the deceased vests in the Administrators of the said estate as the legal representatives in accordance with **Sections 176 and 188 of the Succession Act,** therefore, without operative letters of administration, the estate is left without legal representatives to finalize the administration of the deceased's estate. In the premises, I am convinced that the applicants have presented sufficient cause to warrant an extension of the letters of Administration for the **Estate of Late Agiri Nanfuka issued via Administrative Cause No. 0160 of 2013.**

I accordingly allow this application with a finding that the present application merits extension of letters of administration and time within which to file a final account out of time.

In these premises, the Applicant's application succeeds and I hereby order as follows;

- *1) Application allowed* - *2) Letters of Administration for the Estate of the Late Agiri Nanfuka issued vide Administration Cause. 160 of 2013 to the applicants are hereby extended for one year effective 17 th July 2025.* - *3) The Applicants are granted leave to file a true and final account of the estate of the Late Agiri Nanfuka issued vide Administration Cause No. 160 of 2013 out of time.* - *4) The Applicants are directed to file the updated inventory clearly showing the following;* - *a) the name of the deceased; date of death; Administration Cause number; Date of Issuance of the Letters of Administration; Names of Administrator; Date of Submission of Inventory.* - *b) Properties that formed part of the deceased's estate as at the date of death. For immoveable properties, attach certified documentary evidence and for moveable properties, a list with details and descriptions. A status update of these properties should be given as at the date of filing of this inventory.* - *c) Credits of the deceased* - *d) Debts of the deceased* - *e) List of beneficiaries of the deceased and their National IDs*

- *f) Proposed distribution of properties among the beneficiaries and justification for this proposed distribution i.e. family minutes consenting to the proposed distribution, duly signed by the beneficiaries and the Administrators.* - *g) For property already distributed before the filing of the inventory, a list of properties distributed and to whom it was distributed among the beneficiaries and a justification for the distribution and proof that the said beneficiary received the same.* - *5) The said inventory should be filed within six months from the date of this Ruling.*

I so order,

**Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga**

## **JUDGE**

Ruling delivered on this **17 th** day of **July**, **2025** via ECCMIS