[2011] UGHCFD 3
The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead any legitimate legal grounds for revocation of the grant of letters of administration. The reasons advanced, such as not being informed of the application and uncertainty about the acreage of the Kibanja, do not constitute valid grounds for revocation under the law....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] UGHCFD 3
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fina Namusoke; Defendant: Namusisi Teopista; Defendant: Matovu Edward; Defendant: Lubega Micheal; Defendant: Bukenya Stuart
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No. 84 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Plaint
- Outcome
- plaint rejected and struck out with costs to the 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
Lubega Micheal
Defendant
Bukenya Stuart
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has disclosed legitimate legal grounds for revocation of the grant of letters of administration.
- 2 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's actions constituted intermeddling with the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead any legitimate legal grounds for revocation of the grant of letters of administration. The reasons advanced, such as not being informed of the application and uncertainty about the acreage of the Kibanja, do not constitute valid grounds for revocation under the law. The plaintiff's claim to the estate by virtue of outliving her siblings was also rejected, as the estate had not been distributed and the estates of her deceased siblings were equally entitled to shares. Furthermore, the plaintiff admitted to intermeddling with the estate by exchanging the Kibanja for titled land without a grant of letters of administration, which is illegal....
Court Disposition
plaint rejected and struck out with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The plaint is rejected and struck out.
- Costs are awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
the **REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**N 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**
**3) LUBEGA MICHEAL**
**4) BUKENYA STUART**
**::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANTS**
**(Administrators of the Estate of the late SEBABIRYE ISABIRYE)^**
## **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.
Another ground is that the defendants were uncertain about the exact acreage of the-deceased's Kibanja. This, too, is not a legitimate ground for revocation of a grant.
P ' tiff does not plead that the deceased left a will which the dants were aware of but concealed from court. She does not P d 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 Kibanja. 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 preceded'to exchanger, with Registered Owner of the land, one Crispus Lule
tuuka, a large portion of the Kibanja for one acre of land. In my view is 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.ll (a) of the CPR and <sup>I</sup> hereby exercise powers granted under that rule to reject the plaint and strike it out with costs to the defendants.
Order accordingly.
**HON. MOSES MUKIIBI JUDGE**
**28/06/11**