[2011] UGHCFD 4
The court found that the plaintiff's grounds for seeking revocation of the grant of letters of administration were not recognized by law. The mere fact that the plaintiff was not informed of the application for the grant, or that the defendants were uncertain about the acreage of the deceased's property, did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] UGHCFD 4
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fina Namusoke; Defendant: Namusisi Teopista; Defendant: Matovu Edward; Defendant: Bukenya Stuart; Defendant: Lubega Micheal
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No. 84 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
- Outcome
- plaint rejected and struck out with costs to defendants
- Judges
- Mukiibi, J
- Legal Topics
- Letters of Administration, Revocation of Grant, Intestate Succession, Cause of Action, Abuse of Process
- 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
Fina Namusoke
Plaintiff
Namusisi Teopista
Defendant
Matovu Edward
Defendant
Bukenya Stuart
Defendant
Lubega Micheal
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action for revocation of the grant of letters of administration.
- 2 Whether the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff constitute legal grounds for revocation of a grant.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's actions amounted to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's grounds for seeking revocation of the grant of letters of administration were not recognized by law. The mere fact that the plaintiff was not informed of the application for the grant, or that the defendants were uncertain about the acreage of the deceased's property, did not constitute legal grounds for revocation. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim to sole ownership of the deceased's property, and her subsequent exchange of the property without a grant of letters of administration, amounted to intermeddling with the estate. The plaint did not disclose any just cause for revocation and was considered an abuse of court process. Accordingly, the court...
Court Disposition
plaint rejected and struck out with costs to defendants
Orders
- The plaint is rejected and struck out under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The plaintiff shall pay costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
#### **[FAMILY DIVISION]**
# **CIVIL SUIT NO. 84 OF 2008**
**FINA NAMUSOKE PLAINTIFF**
### **VERSUS**
**1) NAMUSISI TEOPISTA**
**2) MATOVU EDWARD**
**I**
4) **BUKENYA STUART**
(Administrators of the Estate of the late SEBABIRYE ISABIRYE)
# **3) LUBEGA MICHEAL** DEFENDANTS
**.<**
#### RULING
The plaintiff has brought this suit seeking an order revoking a grant of letters of Administration granted by this court to the defendants in 2007. One ground for the revocation is that the defendants applied for a grant without informing her. With due respect this is not a legitimate ground for revocation of a grant.
for revocation of a grant. Another ground is that the defendants were uncertain about the exact acreage of the-deceased's Kibanja. This, too, is not a legitimate ground
*....* **..■-±s±.\_**
The plaintiff does not plead that the deceased left a will which the defendants were aware of but concealed from court. She does not plead that the alleged bequest to daughters was made by the deceased in a will.
The other purported grounds for revocation are not anywhere near legal grounds for seeking revocation.
The plaintiff reveals that the deceased, the late Lubera Sebabirye died in 1967. The deceased had three daughters and five sons. Apparently, the deceased died intestate. All the deceased's children had an interest in the deceased's estate and were entitled to take a share there of upon distribution.
No letters of Administration were granted in respect of the deceased's estate. The estate was not distributed to the deceased's children.
Apparently, the deceased's children have died save for the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleads that by reason of out living her siblings she remained solely in control and ownership of the deceased's Kibania. This is a gross misconception. No part of the Kibanja was ever distributed to her. She claims interest by succession. The estates of her dead siblings are equally entitled to shares/portions of the deceased father's estate.
The plaintiff has pleaded an illegality. She stated in parag. 10 that the deceased's Kibanja no longer exists.
In effect she, acting without any grant of letters of Administration, gave the whole Kibanja to herself, and thereafter preced exchanger, with Registered Owner of the land, one Crispus Lule
Kituuka, a large portion of the Kibanja for one acre of land. In my view this was the height of intermeddling by the plaintiff.
This court cannot be seen to sanction an illegality and aid an illegal dealer with the deceased's estate.
In my view the present plaint constitutes an abuse of the process of court. This court has inherent power under S.98 of the CPA to prevent this.
Also, this suit is shown by the plaint to be frivolous and vexatious.
The plaintiff who has pleaded giving away the deceased's estate in exchange for titled land, without a grant of letters of Administration, cannot be seen to ask for an inventory of the deceased's estate.
The plaint has not disclosed any just cause for seeking revocation of the grant of letters of Administration to the defendants.
In my view the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the defendants as required by 0.7 r. 11 (a) of the CPR and I hereby exercise powers granted under that rule to reject the plaint and strike it out with costs to the defendants.
Order accordingly.
I
*IF* I. - ■\*
•far
*HF*
**HON. MOSES MUKIIBI**
**JUDGE**
**28/06/11**
**¥**
*£■*
**f**
**"3** *"*nrf