Share
Lukwago and Another v Katabula (Miscellaneous Application 216 of 2023) [2023] UGHCLD 197 (11 July 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCLD 197
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 216 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Nkonge, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 216 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was unopposed and the applicants demonstrated that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, having been granted letters of administration. The law presumes acceptance of affidavit evidence where it is not denied. The court found that the applicants are entitled to be substituted as parties and to revive the suit in their capacity as administrators of the estate. The application was granted as prayed, with no orders as to costs.
Court disposition
application_granted
Orders
- The applicants are substituted as legal representatives of the late Bisase Joseph Bisosonkole in Civil Suit No.814 of 2017.
- The suit is revived and allowed to proceed with the applicants as parties.
- No orders as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lukwago Joshua Kato
Applicant Counsel: Mugenyi & Co. AdvocatesPriscilla Namudu
Applicant Counsel: Mugenyi & Co. AdvocatesStephen Musisi Katabula
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants should be substituted as legal representatives of the deceased in the main suit.
- 02
Whether the suit should be revived and allowed to proceed with the applicants as parties.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants, as joint administrators of the estate of the late Bisase Joseph Bisosonkole, sought to be substituted as legal representatives in the suit and to revive the dismissed suit. They relied on their letters of administration and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. The application was supported by affidavit evidence and no objection was filed by the respondent.
- Respondent
- No reply or objection was filed by the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Makerere University v. St. Mark Education Institute Ltd. & Others [1994] KALR 26; Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v. World Food Programme & Others [1998] KALR 32; Kalyesubula Fenekansi v. Luwero District Land Board & Others; Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2011
Where facts in an affidavit are not denied by the opposite party, they are presumed to be accepted.
- 02
Sections 64 & 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap.71; Order 24 rules 3 & 8, and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
Legal representatives of a deceased party may be substituted and allowed to revive and proceed with a suit under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was unopposed and the applicants demonstrated that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, having been granted letters of administration. The law presumes acceptance of affidavit evidence where it is not denied. The court found that the applicants are entitled to be substituted as parties and to revive the suit in their capacity as administrators of the estate. The application was granted as prayed, with no orders as to costs.
Court disposition
application_granted
- The applicants are substituted as legal representatives of the late Bisase Joseph Bisosonkole in Civil Suit No.814 of 2017.
- The suit is revived and allowed to proceed with the applicants as parties.
- No orders as to costs.
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)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2023
(Arising from Civil Suit No.814 of 2017)
1. LUKWAGO JOSHUA KATO
$\mathsf{S}$
2. PRISCILLA NAMUDU:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VERSUS
STEPHEN MUSISI KATABULA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya. 10
Ruling.
The applicants through their lawyers, *M/s Mugenyi & Co. Advocates* filed this application under Sections 64 & 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap.71 and Order 24 rules 3 & 8, and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI
71-1 seeking orders that the applicants as legal representatives of the late 15 Bisase Joseph Bisosonkole be made party to the suit, and allowed to revive and proceed with the suit; and for costs of the application to be provided for.
Grounds of application:
The grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support of the application deponed by Mr. Lukwago Joshua Kato, the 1st applicant. He 20 stated inter alia that he is the administrator of the estate of the late Bisase Joseph Bisosonkole having been jointly granted letters of administration with the $2^{nd}$ applicant on 14<sup>th</sup> July 2022.
That he swore the affidavit in support hereof in a bid to revive the suit, and substitute the applicants as the administrators of the deceased, and to be the 25 legal representatives of the deceased in the said suit, and set aside the dismissal.
Jakol O
The applicants received service of the court documents through their counsel, M/s KaJeero &, Co. Advocctes. No reply was filed in objection.
It is now settled law that where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and they are not denied by the opposite party, the presumption is that they are accepted.
5 (See: Makerere tlniuersltg ,ersus St. Mark Education Instltute Ltd. & Others [19941 KALR 26; Eridqdi Ahlmblslbwe uersus World Food Programme & Others [1998] KALR 32; Kalgesubula Feneko,nsl uersus Luwero Dlstrlct Land Board & Others; Miscellaneous Appllcation No. 367 oJ 2071)
<sup>10</sup> This application therefore stands unopposed.
No orders as to costs
I so order.
<sup>15</sup> 0
Alexandra Nkong e Rug adga
Judge
<sup>7</sup>7th Julg 2023
c", I ,rt') <sup>U</sup> w !oL ,E /) l\ 1,\ LdL3
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.