[2025] UGHC 527

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU**

# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 12 OF 2024**

(Arising from High Court Administration Cause No. 0027 of 2000)

| 1.<br>ISSA<br>YUSUF SADAM | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--| | 2.<br>SHAMIM YUSUF | | | | 3.<br>OYITE SALIM YUSUF | | | | 4.<br>ALIMA YUSUF | | | | 5.<br>OPIYO RAMATHAN | =================================== APPLICANTS | | | | VERSUS | | | MUSTAFA ORUMA======================================RESPONDENT | | |

# **BEFORE HON. JUSTICE PHILLIP ODOKI**

### **RULING**

### **Introduction:**

[1] The Applicants filed this application by Notice of Motion seeking for orders that, the letters of administration that were granted by this Court on the 7th December 2000 to the Respondent, vide High Court Administration Cause No. 0027 of 2000, in respect to the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf, be revoked; that they (the Applicants) be appointed as the new administrators to the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf; and the cost of this application be provided for.

## **The Application's case:**

[2] The gist of the Applicants case, as can be discerned from the Notice of Motion and the affidavit of the 1st Applicant in support of the application, is that there is a just cause to revoke the letters of administration. The Applicants contend that ever since the letters of administration were granted to the Respondent, the same has become inoperative because the Respondent left the country and his whereabout is unknown to the beneficiaries of the estate. In addition, the Applicants contend that ever since the letters were granted to the Respondent, he has willfully and without any reasonable cause omitted to exhibit any inventory or account in accordance with Part XXXIV of the Succession Act. The Applicants further contend that they are beneficiaries of the estate and children of the late Oruma Yusuf and the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf have agreed that fresh grant of letters of administration should be given to them.

### **Respondent's case:**

[3] The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply opposing the application. He denied that his whereabout was not known to the Applicants. He deponed that he was sick for a very long time in Lacor hospital suffering from diabetes, ulcers and pressure. The Respondent instead blames the Applicants for mismanaging the estate by selling off one lorry for the deceased, failing to account for the proceeds, renting part of the estate's land to Starbex Petrol Station without his involvement and failing to account for the rental income.

### **Legal Representation:**

[4] At the hearing, the Applicants were represented by Ms Isabella Piloya of M/s Kunihira & Co. Advocates. The Respondent was self-represented.

### **Legal submissions:**

[5] Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent failed to file the inventory as required by the law. She relied on *In the matter of the estate of the late Javuru Appollo Micheal High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0053 Of 2016* where Justice Mubiru emphasized that the purpose revoking letters of administration is to ensure due and proper administration of an estate and protection of the interests of those beneficiaries of the estate. Counsel for the Applicant invited the Court to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration to the Respondent. She prayed that the grant should instead be issued to the Applicants who were appointed by the family, as evidenced by the family resolution. Counsel for the Applicants however conceded that the Applicants have not obtained any Certificate of no Objection from the administrator General allowing the Applicants to administer the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf. The Respondent did not make any submissions. He invited the court to rely on his affidavit in reply.

### **Analysis and determination of the Court:**

[6] Section 230 (1) of the *Succession Act Cap. 268 of the Laws of Uganda* provides that the grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Just cause is defined in Section 230 (2) to include where the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances and where the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with Part XXXIV of the Succession Act, or has exhibited under that Part an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.

[7] In the instant case, although the Applicants contend that ever since the letters of administration were granted to the Respondent, the same has become inoperative because the Respondent left the country and his whereabout is unknown to the beneficiaries of the estate, I note that the process server was able to serve the Respondent with this application. In the affidavit of service, the process server indicated that on the 17th February 2025 he received this application to be served on the Respondent. On the 19th February 2025 he proceeded to the home of the Respondent located at Library Cell, Library Ward, Bardege – Layibi Division, Gulu City opposite Jumai Mosque to effect service on the Respondent. On arrival, he found the Respondent repairing a motor vehicle at home and he served him with the application and the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the application. The Applicants did not swear any additional affidavit to explain why the Respondent whom they had alleged that his whereabout was not known was able to be located by the process server at his home. The Respondent clearly denied that his whereabout was not known. I am not persuaded by the ground of the application that ever since the grant of the letters of administration, the Respondent left the country and his whereabout was unknown to the beneficiaries of the estate. That ground is accordingly rejected.

[8] On the ground of the application that the Respondent failed to file any inventory, the averment in the affidavit of the 1st Applicant was not rebutted by the Respondent. This Court can therefore take it that the Respondent accepted the allegation as the truth. In addition, I have perused the original file in High Court Administration Cause No. 0027 of 2000 where the said inventory would have been filed but there is no inventory on the file. The Respondent has not offered any reason why he did not file the said inventory or applied for extension of time within which to file the inventory.

[9] Part XXXIV of the Succession Act provides for the duties of the administrator of and estate. Section 273 (1) provides that the executor or executrix or administrator or administratrix must, 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.

[10] In the instant case, the grant of letters of administration was issued on the 7th December 2000. It is now 24 years since the grant was issued to him. I therefore find that the applicant has proved to the required standard that the Respondent willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with Part XXXIV of the Succession Act.

[12] On the prayer that the Applicants' be appointed as the new administrators to the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf, I note that none of the Applicants have been granted a Certificate of no Objection by the Administrator General. Section 5(1) of the *Administrator General's Act Cap 264 of the Laws of Uganda* provides that no grant shall be made to any person, except an executor appointed by the will of the deceased or the widower or widow of the deceased, or his or her attorney duly authorized in writing, authorizing that person to administer the estate of a deceased person, until the applicant has produced to the court proof that the Administrator General or his or her agent has declined to administer the estate or proof of having given to the Administrator General fourteen clear days' definite notice in writing of his or her intention to apply for the grant.

[13] In the end, the letters of administration that were granted by this Court on the 7th December 2000 to the Respondent vide High Court Administration Cause No. 0027 of 2000 in respect to the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf is accordingly revoked. I however decline to grant to the Applicants letters of administration to the estate of the late Oruma Yusuf. This being a family matter and the application having partly succeeded and partly failed, each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

I so order.

Dated and delivered this 3rd day of March, 2025.

Phillip Odoki **Judge.**