Letters of Administration to the estate of Matiya Kafeero (Administration Cause 113 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 27 (16 June 1992)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA.

ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO. 113 OF 1992.

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO THE ESTATE OF

MATIYA KAFEERO.......... DECEASED.

JEFORE: THE HON MR. AG. JUSTICE F. M. S. EGONDA - NTENDE $R$ U L I N G:

This is an application brought by the Administrator General seeking a review of my decision made on the 8th April 1992. T_t has been made pursuant to Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule (1) and (8) and Order 48 Rule 3 of the Civil Brocedure Rules.

I will set out the portion of the decision of this Court that the Administrator General wants reviewed.

> "Lastly, I find that this petition is not verified as required by Section 247 of the Succession Act which provides:-

> > "A petition for probate or letters of Administration shall in all cases be subscribed by the Petitioner and his Advocate if any and shall be verified by the Petitioner in the following manner..., $\ldots$

This requirement is in my view mandatory. Failure to couply with the same is fatal to the potition and I so find."

Mr. Madama who appeared for the Administrator General subwith that this portion of the Order way made in error as it 🎿 🖢 not take into account Section 30 of the Administrator Generals not which exempts the Administrator General from verification ly awearing the truth of the contents of a petition. He further 1 ferred to Section 37 of the Administrator General's Act which

$\mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$

$...12$

octolishes the precedence of that Act over the Succession Act. It is true that the decision sought to be reviewed makes no Increase to Section 30 of the Administrator General's Act and v. to extent this Court did not take into account the provisions 32 Section 30 of the Administrator General's Act this Court was i: error.

$\mathcal{L}$

Section 30 of the Administrator General's Act provides:-

"30 (1) The Administrator General shall not be required to verify, otherwise than by signature, any petition presented by him under the provisions of this Act and if the facts stated in any such petition are not within the Administrator General's own personal knowledge the petition may<br>be subscribed and verified by any person comptent to make the verification.

PROVIDED that the facts stated in the reports of any agent of the Administrator General or of any person whice duty it is by law or otherwise to make such report to the Administrator General shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be within the personal knowledge of the Administrator General."

above provisions in my opinion cater for two situations. The: lirst one is where the Administrator General received information from his official agent and as a result presents a petition for ittins of Administration. In such a case the Administrator

markl is not required to take an oath to verify that petition. tion signature shall be sufficient verification. The second trustion is where information received by the Administrator. 🐷 neral is not from an agent for purposes of the Administrator And ral's Act but some other person. In such a case that informagnetic cannot be deemed to be in the personal knowledge of the instruction General. If the Administrator General presents a

$... / 3$

contion based on that information, then the person who has Sursonal knowledge of the matters contained in the petition shall subscribe and verify such petition.

$\mathfrak{Z}$

The result as envisaged by Section 30 (Supra) is that not every petition by the Administrator General may be presumed to be based on personal knowledge or deemed personal knowledge of the Administrator General. I would think it would be a prudent practice in drafting such petitions, to state the source of facts or report upon which the Administrator General has acted. If the source is an Agent of the Administrator General his signature shall be sufficient verification. If the source is any other person then the petition would have to be verified in the ordinary way by the person comptent to do so. The signature of the Administrator General would not amount to sufficient verification in such a case.

In the result the application for review is allowed to the extent set out above. A petition must disclose sufficient inforintion to the face of it upon which a Court would be able to tetermine whether the petition needs verification in the ordinary buy or the signature of the Administrator General is sufficient v.rification.

JAMSZAWYWIAG<br>M. S. EGONDA ·· NTENDE

$10/1992.$

12. Ladama for the Administrator General present. Roman and delivered.