Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Agaba Acleo (Administrator of the estate of the Late Agaba Selevasta) v Kabagyenyi Jane Rose (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 110 (27 March 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for reinstatement was filed against a respondent who was already deceased at the time of filing. The law is clear that no suit or application can be maintained against a non-existent entity, and any such proceeding is a nullity. The proper course, if the respondent had died during the pendency of proceedings, would have been to substitute the legal representative. Since the application was filed against a deceased person, the court is powerless to act under the Civil Procedure Code, and the application is bad in law. Accordingly, the application is struck out.

Court disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application is struck out for being filed against a deceased person.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Agaba Acleo (Administrator of the Estate of the late Agaba Selevasta)

Appellant Counsel: Ngaruye Ruhindi, Spencer & Co. Advocates

Kabagenyi Jane Rose

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution while he was imprisoned, and upon release, he was misled by previous counsel regarding the appropriate remedy. He was further delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and only recently advised to seek reinstatement. He contended that denying the application would cause gross injustice and prayed for its allowance.
Respondent
Counsel for the respondent notified the court that the respondent had died in 2006, prior to the filing of the application, and submitted a death certificate as proof. He argued that the application was filed against a deceased person and was therefore not maintainable.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Babubhai Dhanji Pathak v. Zainab Mrekwe [1964] E.A. 24

    A suit against a deceased person is not maintainable in law and is a nullity.

  2. 02

    Abdala v Agony (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0067 of 2016) [2017] UGHCFD 3

    Where a person dies during the course of proceedings, the suit survives only against the legal representative; otherwise, it abates.

  3. 03

    Municipal Corporation of Karachi v. Baradio Jumoo Mughal, AIR(33) 1946 Sind 23

    No rights exist against a dead person; only legal representatives can sue or be sued.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for reinstatement was filed against a respondent who was already deceased at the time of filing. The law is clear that no suit or application can be maintained against a non-existent entity, and any such proceeding is a nullity. The proper course, if the respondent had died during the pendency of proceedings, would have been to substitute the legal representative. Since the application was filed against a deceased person, the court is powerless to act under the Civil Procedure Code, and the application is bad in law. Accordingly, the application is struck out.

Obiter and limits

  • If a party dies during the currency of a suit, substitution of the legal representative is necessary for the suit to survive.
  • The court cannot dispose of a suit according to law where it is filed against a dead person, as no rights exist against such a person.

Court disposition

application struck out

  • The application is struck out for being filed against a deceased person.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

High Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGHC 110

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 056 OF 2023

(ARISING FROM HCT – 01 – CV – CA – 001 OF 2007)

5 AGABA ACLEO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT (Suing as an Administrator of the Estate of the late Agaba Selevasta) VERSUS

KABAGENYI JANE ROSE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA

10 RULING

The applicant brought this application for an order setting aside the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 001 of 2007 and for the suit to be reinstated and heard on merits. The applicant also prayed for costs of taking out the application.

It was averred by the applicant that Civil Appeal No. 001 of 2007 was dismissed for 15 want of prosecution in 2012. That when the suit come up for hearing, he was absent as he had been convicted on criminal charges and sentenced to life imprisonment in HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 00061 OF 2008.

That after 10 years in prison, he was released by the Court of Appeal that sat at Fortportal in 2018. After his release, he contacted the firm of M/s Rwabwogo & Co. 20 Advocates that misled him that the available remedy was to file a fresh suit and not an application for re-instatement.

![](_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg)

1 | P a g e

That in 2019 and 2020, there was COVID-19 that stopped him from following up on the matter and when he engaged the current advocates of Ngaruye Ruhindi, Spencer & Co. Advocates, they advised him to file an application to have the appeal reinstated. That if the application is not allowed, it shall cause gross injustice to him. 5 He prayed that the application is allowed to ensure the ends of justice.

Mr. Bwiruka informed court through a letter dated 15th/12/2023 and in court on 18 th March 2024, acting on behalf of Asiimwe Godfrey, Rwakyaka Patrick, Nkwenge Veneranda and Kabahweza Consolata that the Respondent died and this fact was known to the applicant before filing this application. He attached a copy of the death certificate dated 19 10 th April 2023 issued by the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) where it is indicated that the deceased Kabagenyi Jone Rose died on 13th November 2006. He informed court that the application had

been filed against a deceased person.

DECISION:

15 It is a settled principle of law that a suit against a deceased person is not maintainable in the Court of law. This was emphasized in *BabubhaiDhanji Pathak v. ZainabMrekwe [1964] E. A. 24* that a case filed against a dead person is a nullity and of no legal consequence. This is hinged on the firm principle that a suit cannot be maintained against a none-existent entity. Therefore no suit can be maintained 20 against a deceased person.

However, where a person dies during the course of the proceedings, the suit survives as against the legal representative of such person. Where a person died during the currency of a suit, it automatically abates as against the person who died. (See:

![](_page_1_Picture_6.jpeg)

*Abdala v Agony (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0067 of 2016) [2017] UGHCFD 3 (2 March 2017).*

Thadani, J in the Indian case of *Municipal Corporation of Karachi V. BaradioJumoo Mughal, AIR(33) 1946 Sind 23*, put it this way: *"I have*

- 5 *no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that where a suit has been filed against a dead man, the Court is powerless to act under any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, in order to dispose of it according to law, because no rights exist against a dead person, but if they survive, they come to exist in the legal representatives who alone can sue or be sued."* - 10 In this case the applicant filed an application for re-instatement of Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2007 against Kabagenyi Jane Rose who was already deceased. I find the application bad in law. I thus strike it out with no orders as to costs. I so order.

![](_page_2_Picture_4.jpeg)

Vincent Wagona 15 High Court Judge FORTPORTAL

DATE: 27/03/2024

![](_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg)

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Babubhai Dhanji Pathak v. Zainab Mrekwe [1964] E.A. 24

Case cited

Abdala v Agony (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0067 of 2016) [2017] UGHCFD 3

Case cited

Municipal Corporation of Karachi v. Baradio Jumoo Mughal, AIR(33) 1946 Sind 23

Case cited

Civil Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.