Share
Kikonyogo Daniel v Nansubuga and Anor (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1426 of 2020) [2021] UGHCLD 50 (31 March 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 50
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1426 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1426 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed because it was improperly brought against a deceased person, and the deceased's advocates were not proper parties to be joined in the matter. The court emphasized that upon learning of the death of a party, the correct procedure is to seek the involvement of the Administrator General under the Administrator General's Act for the management of the deceased's estate and continuation of the suit. The applicant was advised to pursue redress through the Administrator General rather than proceeding against the deceased or her advocates.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent
Orders
- The application against the 1st and 2nd respondents is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kikonyogo Daniel
ApplicantNansubuga Remmy (Alias Nansubuga Halima)
RespondentBakkidde & Hannan Advocates
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether it was proper to bring an application against a deceased person.
- 02
Whether it was proper to join the deceased's advocates as respondents in the application.
- 03
What is the appropriate procedure for prosecuting a suit where a defendant has died.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to proceed with the application against the 1st respondent, who had died, and joined the 2nd respondent, the deceased's advocates, as parties to the application.
- Respondent
- The 2nd respondent argued that the application was improper as it was brought against a deceased person and that the advocates were only legal representatives of the deceased, not proper parties to the suit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of civil procedure.
An application cannot be sustained against a deceased person.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure.
Legal representatives/advocates of a deceased party are not proper parties to be joined in the suit solely by virtue of their representation.
- 03
Administrator General's Act Cap 157, s.4(5)(a).
The Administrator General has statutory powers to manage estates of persons who die intestate and may be granted letters of administration by the court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed because it was improperly brought against a deceased person, and the deceased's advocates were not proper parties to be joined in the matter. The court emphasized that upon learning of the death of a party, the correct procedure is to seek the involvement of the Administrator General under the Administrator General's Act for the management of the deceased's estate and continuation of the suit. The applicant was advised to pursue redress through the Administrator General rather than proceeding against the deceased or her advocates.
Obiter and limits
- The Applicant may consider seeking redress through the Administrator General to conclude the prosecution of the suit.
- The role of the Administrator General includes management of estates of persons who die intestate.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent
- The application against the 1st and 2nd respondents is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION)
MISC. APPLICATION NO 1426 OF 2020
5 (Arising from Civil Suit No. 783 of 2019)
KIKONYOGO DANIEL ---------------------------------------------------APPLICANT
V
1. NANSUBUGA REMMY (ALIAS NANSUBUGA HALIMA) 10 2. BAKKIDDE & HANNAN ADVOCATES----------------------RESPONDENTS Before: Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya
RULING
I have perused the application and affidavit in support and affidavit in reply. It is unfortunate that the 1st Defendant/ Respondent, Ms. Nansubuga Remmy (Alias 15 Nansubuga Halima) died after this suit was instituted against her by the Plaintiff/Applicant. Having learnt of her death and being aware of it, it was improper for the Applicant to bring this motion against a deceased person. I agree with the 2nd Respondent on this point.
Secondly, it was also improper for the Applicant to join M/S Bakidde & Hannan
- Advocates as 2nd 20 Respondent in this matter because their role is and has always been legal representatives/advocate to the deceased 1st Respondent and nothing more. This application is not sustainable. Before I take leave of the matter, I would like to draw the Applicant's attention to the role the Administrator General under the - Administrator General's Act Cap 157 which includes inter alia, the management of the - 25 estate of persons who die intestate. The Applicant may consider seeking redress along those lines in order to conclude the prosecution of this suit.
S.4 (5)(a) of the Administrator General's Act provides as follows;
*Notwithstanding subsection (4)-*
- *(a) when the peculiar circumstances of the case appear to the court so to require, for reasons recorded in its proceedings, the court may if it thinks it fit, of its own motion or otherwise, after having heard the Administrator General, grant letters* - 5 *of administration to the Administrator General or to any other person even though there are persons who, in the ordinary course, would be legally entitled to administer ….and for this purpose may call in and revoke any grant of probate or letters of administration previously made by the court.*
Otherwise the application as it stands against the 1st & 2nd Respondents is dismissed with costs to the 2nd 10 Respondent.
……………………………….
Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya
15 Judge
31st March 2021
Delivered by email to Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent.
20
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.