Korukiiko Annet v Tibashemererwa Beatrice and Another (Civil Revision 39 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 462 (30 June 2025)


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA HCT-05-CV-CR-0039-2022

5 (FROM NTUNGAMO MAGISTRATE'S COURT NTU-LD-CS-018 OF 2021)

KORUKIIKO ANNET ………………………….….…………….………… APPLICANT

VERSUS

10

1. TIBASHEMERERWA BEATRICE

2. KOBUSINGYE JOVENTA …………………….………………..…… RESPONDENTS

BEFORE: Hon. Justice Nshimye Allan Paul M.

RULING

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Suwaya Matovu from M/s Matovu 20 Suwaya and Co. Advocates while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Joshua Mariiro from M/s Mwene-Buhazi & Co. Advocates.

BACKGROUND

This application was brought under Sections 83 and 98 of the Civil Procedure 25 Act, Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and other enabling law seeking orders that;

a) The decision and orders made on 14th November, 2022 by the Chief Magistrate of Ntungamo dismissing Civil Suit No.18 of 2021 with costs be 30 revised.

- b) The decision of the trial Chief Magistrate dismissing Civil Suit No.18 of 2021 be set aside and orders made thereof be declared null and void and the suit be reinstated and heard to its conclusion on merit. - c) That the subsequent execution process and orders be set aside. - 35 d) Costs of the application be provided for.

The applicant deponed an affidavit in support of the application, while the 2nd Respondent opposed the application in an affidavit, she deponed both on her behalf, and on behalf of the 1st Respondent.

5 GROUNDS

The grounds of the application as stated in the notice of motion are;

- 1. That the Applicant is aggrieved by the ruling and orders of the Chief Magistrate's court delivered on 14th November, 2022 at Ntungamo *vide* NTU-LD-CS-018 of 2021. - 10 2. That the learned trial chief magistrate acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and injustice when he dismissed the Applicant's case *vide* NTU-LD-CS-018 of 2021. - 3. That the learned trial Chief Magistrate failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested when he never heard evidence from the parties and wrongly - 15 dismissed the case as well as unfairly allowing the counter claim that was defective in nature and content. - 4. That learned trial Chief Magistrate unlawfully invalidated letters of administration of the estate of Katahwire Moses - the Applicants husband, which were legally granted to the applicant vide NTU-00-CV-AC-0025/2020. - 20 5. That there is need for court to revise and make orders in respect of the land the subject matter in land case *vide* NTU-LD-CS-018 of 2021 that is being trespassed upon by the Respondents. - 6. That it is in the interest of justice that the Applicant's application for revision be granted by this honorable court for the case to be heard on merit and - 25 justice to prevail to the parties.

SUBMISSIONS

The parties filed written submissions that I have considered.

30 Applicant's submissions

Counsel framed two issues;

- i. Whether there are grounds for revision. - ii. What remedies are available to the parties. - 35 Counsel faulted the trial Court for invalidating the Applicant's letters of administration without just cause, and further that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the trust property which the Applicant's husband held in trust of his brother – Katurebe Benard, formed part of the estate of the late Katahwire Moses (Applicant's husband) under the auspices of Section 18(2) of - 40 the Trustees Act. That the Applicant's husband left her in possession of the

trust property and when he died, the property was transferred to her as his personal representative. And that basing on that background, the Applicant had locus to commence the action before the trial Court. Counsel prayed for the application to be allowed with costs.

Respondent's submissions

Counsel contended that the trial Chief Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction regularly given that the Applicant admitted that the suit land is not hers nor her husband's, but for Katurebe Bernard. That in any case a trust existed between 10 Katahwire and Katurebe, it ceased upon the former's death. It was also argued that Section 246 of the Succession Act does not permit letters of administration to include property not for the deceased. That court was justified in partially revoking the grant of letters of administration to the Application under Section 234(2) of the Succession Act. Counsel prayed for the application to be

15 dismissed.

In rejoinder, the Applicant's advocate reiterated her earlier submissions.

DETERMINATION

20 In principle a High Court can exercise powers of revision where it appears that a Magistrate's courts in its decision (a)exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law;(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or(c)acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or injustice, as is provided in SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282.

The High Court exercises its revisionary power by satisfying itself of the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, order or any other decision of the Magistrate's court as was stated in MABALAGANYA V. SANGA (2005) E. A 152. When a case for revision has been made out, the High Court in exercise its 30 unlimited powers in SECTION 98 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282 may make such orders as the court considers fit as was stated in FAUSTINE NTAMBARA VS BENON SUBUJISHO SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 08 OF 2021 2025] UGSC 19 (14 MAY 2025).

- 35 It should be noted that revision decisions of the High Court made under SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT, CAP. 282 are final and are not appealable to the Court of Appeal as was held by the Supreme Court of Uganda in FAUSTINE NTAMBARA vs BENON SUBUJISHO SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 08 OF 2021 2025] UGSC 19 (14 MAY 2025). It is therefore - 40 important that an application for revision strictly focuses on the grounds for

revision in the application guided by SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT, CAP. 282.

It is trite that revision by the High Court under SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL 5 PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282 applies to decisions of a Magistrates court but not the decision of the Local Council Courts or decisions of administrative bodies, because SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282 states that:

"The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been 10 determined under this Act by any magistrate's court…….." (bold emphasis mine)

It means that it is important that there is a decision or an order of a Magistrate's court that is brought to the High Court for revision on the grounds 15 stipulated in SECTION 83 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282.

I have perused the Ruling of His Worship Muhimbise Gordon In Ntungamo Chief Magistrate's Court land case 18 of 2021 whose parties are Korukiko Annet Vs Tibashemererwa Beatrice & 2 others *(see ruling attached annexture* 20 *P6 to the affidavit in support of the application).*

I note that the Learned Chief Magistrate made two orders that are at the centre of this revision application, they are

- 25 1. That a preliminary objection is upheld and the suit is summary dismissed as the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue the defendants - 2. The counter claim succeeds, and letters of administration are hereby revoked by way of removing the suit land that belongs to Katureebe Bernard. - 30

The applicant stated that the suit land belongs to Katureebe Benard who was the brother to the applicant's now deceased husband. The applicant contended that her husband used to look after the brother's land, and on his death the applicant stayed in possession looking after the land for Katureebe

35 Benard *(see paragraph 5 & 9 of the affidavit in support).* The respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging her locus to sue on the land that belongs to Katurebe Bernard, and as a result the suit was dismissed which has now led to this revision application.

In BANK OF UGANDA AND ANOR VS KAWEESI SULAIMAN HCT MA 1047 OF 2022 it was held that

- 5 "The term *locus standi* literally means a place of standing. It means a right to appear in court, and, conversely, to say that a person has no *locus standi* means that he has no right to appear or be heard in a specified proceeding" - 10 It is my considered opinion that since the applicant agreed that the land belongs to Katureebe Benard, the applicant has no locus to sue based on land that was under the care of her late husband. The applicant should obtain powers of attorney from Katureebe Benard to file a suit on his behalf. In that regard the learned Chief Magistrate's decision to dismiss the suit for lack of 15 locus was correct in law, there is no need for revision of this order.

The respondents herein also raised a counter claim in the lower court challenging the fact that the applicant added the suit land of Katurebe Benard in the estate of her late husband Katahwire Moses *(see petition in* 20 *Administration Cause no 25 of 2020 attached as annexture P2 to the affidavit in reply).* The Trial Magistrate granted the counter claim and revoked the letters of administration for including in the petition land that belongs to Katureebe Bernard *(see ruling attached annexture P6 to the affidavit in support of the application).*

The law in SECTION 230 SUCCESSION ACT CAP 268 provides grounds for revocation of letters of administration, it would have been imperative that evidence should have been led by the parties to determine if there is just cause for revocation of the letters of administration , which was not done by the 30 learned Chief Magistrate before revoking the letters of administration held by the applicant.

I have studied the petition filed by applicant and I find that it lists property of her late husband as well as the suit land. It is my opinion that when the 35 applicant admitted that the suit land belonged to Katurebe Benard, the Trial Chief Magistrate ought to have declared that the suit land doesn't not belong to the estate to of the late Katahwire Moses, rather than revoking the letters of administration granted to the applicant, which in essence affects all the estate property without a hearing to get a fair remedy. I therefore find that a

40 case has been made out for revision of the order of the Chief Magistrate to

Page 5 of 6

revoke the letter of administration of the estate of the late Katahwire Moses without conducting a hearing to determine whether just cause exits as stipulated in SECTION 230 SUCCESSION ACT CAP 268.

The High Court has power under SECTION 37 OF THE JUDICATURE ACT CAP 16 $\mathsf{S}$ to give remedies to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, resolve the matters in controversy and promote justice. The applicant herein admitted that the suit land is not part of the estate of the late the late Katahwire Moses. It is safe to declare that the suit land is not part of the estate of the late Katahwire Moses,

$10$

In conclusion, I order that;

- 1. The application for revision succeeds in part. - 2. The application for revision succeeds in respect to the order made by the Chief Magistrate to revoke the letters of administration of the estate of Court Magistrate's Ntungamo Moses in Katahwire late the Administration Cause 25 of 2020 without conducting a hearing to determine whether just cause exits as stipulated in SECTION 230 SUCCESSION ACT CAP 268. - 3. The order of the Chief Magistrate revoking the letters of administration of the estate of the late Katahwire Moses in Ntungamo Magistrate's Court Administration Cause 25 of 2020 is quashed. - 4. A declaration is made that the suit land doesn't form part of the estate of the late Katahwire Moses. - 5. The respondent's shall pay half of the costs of this application to the applicant since the application succeeded in part.

NSHIMYE ALLAN PAUL M. JUDGE

30-06-2025

$25$

20