Samuel Sserwanga v Annet Muhindi Kigonya (Civil Application No. 607 of 2026) [2026] UGCA 162 (23 April 2026)

10 SAMUE 15 Introduct 20 party as [2] During that Nama deceased. (Cor (Admini ANNET M as Admini Bac 25 5 u IN [1]This ap Appea-l No. THE RTPUBLIC OF UGANDA E COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA : Gashirabake, KazTbwe- Kawumi & Alibateese, JJA) CIVIL APPLICATION No. 607 OF 2026 (Arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1O2 of 2Ol4) trator of the estate of the late Namatovu Margaret) VERSUS HINDI KIGONYA = RESPONDENT n lication is brought under Section 2 l g of the Succession 68; Rules 2 & 43 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) -10, seeking orders for appointment of the Respondent trator of the estate of the late Tom Kaaya and made e l"t Appellant limited to enable completion of Civil lO2 of 2014. e session hearing of the appeal, it was established ovu Margaret, the Respondent in the appeal was so declared deceased was Tom Kaaya, the l"t 1 SSERWANGA ======== ==== APPLICANT RULING Act, Cap. Rules SI 1 -e- resen 30 35 40 instruction 45 Re made part Appellant. Administr [3] At the the Respon such, he s appeal, aI allowed substitute [6] Court Baingana. represente SUBMISSI (deceased) Kigonya so adjourned [a] Mr. N tsl When Appellant In an uncontested application, Samuel Sserwanga, tor of the estate of the late Namato',rr Margaret was to replace the deceased Respondent. tion *i.g, the Applicant was represented by Mr John paul e Applicant was in court. The Ist Respondent was by Mr Rayrnond Ndyagambaki. NS agambaki Ra5,,rnond, Counsel for the 1"t Appellant ught more time to engage with Ms. Annet Muhindi at she could replace the 1"t Appellant. The appeal was o allow Counsel for the 1s Appellant to bring on board ent herein on her own volition. e matter came up for hearing, Counsel for the 1"t formed Court that the widow did not cooperate, as ught leave to withdraw from the prosecution of the ough, he had long filed his scheduling notes, Court to withdraw from the conduct of the appeal for lack of owed the Applicant to make a formal application for fthe deceased party, and serve the Respondent herein 2 @ ,"..(s-N--(6\* M 55 scheduling to offer h process Grounds 50 Namatovu 60 she has fa cannot be party. Proof of se 65 hand set p [7] The ap and suppo Tom Kaay appoint th Tom Kaa late Tom K 201.4, yet [9]There is received th the Respo 2014 see [8] That r an opportunity to know and appreciate the Court the intention of the Court. f the A lication lication is premised on the ground set out in the Motion ng affidavit, the substance of which is that the late and Stanley Ndyabahika filed Civil Appeal No. 102 of ng to challenge the High Court decision in which a-rgaret was the successful party. After the interparty the l"t Appellant (Tom Kaaya) died. ere is need to dispose of the appeal, hence the need to Respondent, Administrator to the estate of the late limited to the completion of Civil Appeal No. 1O2 of ere was lack of cooperation from the known wife of the a, who attempted to obtain a Grant to the estate but ed resistance from family members. That the appeal sposed of without replacing or substituting a deceased ce 1davit evidence in proof of service of the motion upon dent filed on the 13th April 2026. T1ne Respondent motion personally and was also served through her one numbers. The Respondent's whatsapp exchange 3 ry $t . t[,-Y 70 [1o] we g0 "when We sha-ll licant 75 Counsel ci deceas execu urutillin nomtnee 85 suit whi between issue in t in it, and A re resen deceased p proceed wi [12] That [11] In his scheduled made due convinced that the Respondent was duly served. oceed to determine this matter exparte. submissions submissions, the Applicant states that the Appeal was ady for hearing in 2015. To date no progress has been the demise of the l"t Appellant, Tom Kaaya. scheduling notes are on record but no action could out compliance with the law and process to replace a d Section 218 of the Succession Act, Cap 26g - is necessary that the representatiue of a person is made a partg to a pending suit, and the exeqttor or or person entitled to administration is unable or o a in the suit limited or the ose o the deceased in that suit or in an other cquse or mag be commenced in the same or in any other court he parties, or anA other parties, touching the matters at at cause or suit, and until a final decree shall be mq.d"e carried into complete execution.,, (Emphasis mine) # e$ CIP with the plocess seryer and ca-ll data were attached to the a-ffidavit. to act, letters o_f administration mau be qranted. to the 4 of the [15] Couns (suo mottol 110 legal repres 7O2 of 2OI4 [16] Counse on 95 deceas 100 There Sectio 105 re res "An a [14] In giv [13]Unde 1O it is pr a deceased Act, the p appoint respon interes bvs The(4) (s) (6) (1) Tom (2) Tom (3) The Rule 97 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13_ vided thus; eal shall not abqte on the death of any appellant or ent; but the court shall, on the apolication of anu d rson oro the court's own motion cause the le al tatiue o the deceased to be made art ln lace o the d." (Emphasis mine) g chronologz of events; aaya filed an Appeal to this Court in 2Ol4 a, 1"t Appellant is now deceased spondent (also deceased) but has since been replaced uel Sserwanga d Tom Kaaya has no known Administrator is need to complete the adjudication of the matter 218 of the Succession Act provides for appointment Administrator limited to the completion of the suit. I submitted that under Section 218 of the Succession to the suit has a right to nominate anyone to replace arty. But also this Court has powers on its own motion r on application of any party to the suit to appoint a ntative for purposes of completion of Civil Appeal No. prayed that this Court exercises its discretion and t Muhindi Kigonya Administrator to the estate of the 5 sNNs-uw,fi € 115 Appeal No. Analvsis late Tom 120 125 130 Court 135 jurisdi exercts ongt [17] The d Civil Appe completion [18] Und 13- 10, or respo disagree [19]Cou estate o [21] Und follows; aya limited to the hearing and completion of Civil lO2 of 2O\4. ceased Tom Kaaya and Stanley Ndyabahika instituted No. 1O2 of 2014. The l"t Appellant died before the of hearing of the appeal. r RuIe 97 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI appeal does not abate on the death of any appellant dent. sel for the deceased (Tom Kaaya) put on record that the Tom Kaaya did not have an Administrator due to ent in the family but that the Respondent was the r Section 11 of the Judicature Act, it is provided as purpose of heaing and determining an appeal, the Appeal shall haue all the powers, authority and. on uested under ang written law in the court from the of the oiginal jurisdiction of which the appeal 6 lg emanated." @ $$\- deceasedls wife. [20] In ttie instant application, the Applicant has identified and nominatdd the Respondent, wife of the 1$ Appellant as the proper p$rson to replace the 1.t Appellant, Tom Kaaya so that, the appeql can progress. "For the W pararneters 140 dece or uruail nom 145 betwe at is 150 155 160 "whe 122) Un provide suit tp rep "An app 13-1O p responde interest represen decease [24] In He William the Succes made [23] Und er Section 2I8 of the Succession Act, Cap 296, it is thus- it is necessary that the representqtiue of a person ed is made a partg to a pending suit, and the executor cutrix or person entitled to ctdministration is unable or ing to act, letters of administration mag be granted, to the of a partg in the suit, limited for the purpose of enting the deceased in that suit or in ang other cause or ich mag be commenced in the sqme or in ang other court the parties, or anA other parties, touching the matters e in that cause or suit, and until a final d.ecree shall be n it, and carried into complete exeantion., r Rule 97 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI vides thus- al shall not abate on the death of ang appellant or t; but the court shall, on the application of ang person, or of the court's own motion, cause the tegal tiue of the deceased to be made party in place of the ry Mukasa Mawangala and 2 Others Vs. George ule; Civll Appl. No. 1OO8 of 20123., this Court set for issuance of a limited grant under Section 2lg of ion Act, where it is stated thus; {$s- 7 @- \4'@-/Y 165 c) The 175 Nthambi unu d) Lette 170 and in the ofthe Succ to our S.21 anst 180 tssuQnce without grant of not mqd ma [25] In He William a) The b) It is partA e) The I "An applicant u.tho intends to inuoke that section must show that: of administration are limited. for the purpose of repre$entation of the d"eceased in the suit etc, until the final decrel and carried into execution.,' is a pending suit. that a representatiue of a person d.eceased. is Mukasa Mawangala and 2 Others Vs. George (supra) the Court was persuaded by the holding of Winrose Emmah Ndinda Kiamba Vs. Agnes 12O2Ll e KLR, while considering S.54 and 55 Act of Kenya which is in couched in similar terms of our Succession Act, the Court held that: to td . It is also issued to the ight of ang other person to applg for full to the deceased. As such, limited. qrant zs t & s,e\tr 200 attempted has failed the Respo 205 indeed ther Qtn He added 190 of rep 195 as a party attend Co re S t 185 A admin re res Ndyabah [27] The [26] In the pending A the necess Court sys [28] The A attendance ts meant o ast #ls u nto re resentation. he erson to uthom the rant is so made undertakes to ter the estate accordi to the Iau) but IImIted or the orwhich the nf zs issued until a rther nto tation is made b the court." (Emphasis mine) at- aspect of consent with regard to special limited grants sentation need not be mandatorA ......" instant appeal the Applicant has proved that there is a peal No. lO2 of 2OI4 filed by Tom Kaaya and Stanley wherein the said Tom Kaaya is now deceased. peal was filed eighteen yea-rs ago and has been in the m since 2OO5 which is over twenty one years therefore, ty to have a representative of the deceased Tom Kaaya the appeal cannot be over ernphasized. plicant's evidence to the effect that the Respondent o apply for Grant to her late husband,s estate but she th objection from her family. Further, the conduct of dent during the process of service and her non- is evidence that the Respondent is hesitant not only to but also comply with the decision of this Court and is nobody willing to pursue issues of the estate of the o W 0c4frt 220 1. ANNET late Tom been enth Conclusio 215 In the cir [31]We he ln resp served KIGONYA, [30] Havi satisfied [32] Consid meet his o [29] The Counsel prosecu 2. We also limited to of the 1"t a. Yet, as Appellant the Respondent ought to have siastic in prosecuting the appeal. ominee of the Applicant, who was the very person agambaki Raymond had contacted ANNET MUHINDI the Respondent herein and her administration is e prosecution of Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2Ol4 on behalf ppellant Tom Kaaya. fully considered all the materials before us, we are at the Applicant has demonstrated that the application stances, the application is allowed. by make the following orders; UHINDI KIGONYA is appointed Administrator ad. litem t of the estate of the late Tom Kaaya limited to Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2Ol4 before this Court. rder that the Respondent Administrator ad. litem be th this Ruling and an extract order. ring the nature of this application, the Applicant shall costs. '10 6r 6\s' 210 has merit and that the grant of the application will enable the disposal of the appeal expeditiously. 225 Costs IT IS SO Dated at 230 235 RDERED rd ,iLpala this day of t...,,.,,,..... 2026 r CHRISTOPHER GASHIRABAKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL. MOSES KAZIBWE -I{AWUMI JUSTICE OF APPEAL. STELLA ALIBATEESE JUSTICE OF'APPEAL. 11 ..............-ffiti.Aees?-