HIGH COURT AFFIRMS THAT TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM ALLOWS A TESTATOR TO DICTATE PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION. HOWEVER, FAMILY AGREEMENTS MODIFYING ESTATE DISTRIBUTION CAN BE BINDING IF ALL BENEFICIARIES CONSENT.
- Waboga David
- Mar 27
- 5 min read
Brief of the case Mukasa & Another v Mukasa & Another (Civil Suit 264 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 11 (24 March 2025)
Area of law: Family Law Practice.
Topic: Estate Planning
Introduction
The Court found that the principle of equity and fair distribution of estate property is governed by the Succession Act, Cap 162 of the Laws of Uganda. Additionally, under the doctrine of fiduciary duty, estate administrators are obligated to act in the best interests of all beneficiaries and ensure fair distribution of assets.
Justice Alice Komuhangi Khaukha further affirmed that testamentary freedom allows a testator to dictate property distribution under Section 23 of the Succession Act, Cap 162. However, family agreements modifying estate distribution can be binding if all beneficiaries consent, as established in In Re Estate of Mutesasira (HCCS 143 of 2018).
Legal Representatives.
The Plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Elias Matovu of M/S Baale, Lubega & Co. Advocates & and Counsel Hamidu Lugoloobi of M/S Lugoloobi Associated Advocates.
The Defendants were represented by Mr. Mulindwa Hamisi and Counsel Higenyi Badru of M/S Balyejjusa & Co. Advocates
Summary of Facts
On June 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a suit against China Machines (U) Ltd (1st Defendant), Camaco Investments Ltd (2nd Defendant), Haji Amisi Kirumba Mukasa (3rd Defendant), Mugenyi Peter (4th Defendant), and the Commissioner of Land Registration (5th Defendant).
The Plaintiffs alleged that the 3rd and 4th Defendants, as Administrators of the estate of the late Haji Nasibu Mukasa, fraudulently leased or sold the suit property to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, depriving them of their rightful inheritance. They sought the nullification of the lease and cancellation of the Certificate of Title.
On April 17, 2024, during the scheduling conference, the Plaintiffs withdrew the case against the 1st and 2nd Defendants through a consent agreement and were granted leave to amend the Plaint, removing the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Defendants.
The 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant being children of the late Haji Nasibu Mukasa, while the 2nd Plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.
The deceased left a Will, and the 3rd and 4th Defendants obtained a Grant of Probate in 2004.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants failed to distribute proceeds from the lease and sale of the suit property, which was initially bequeathed to specific beneficiaries.
The Defendants argued that the land was part of a larger estate, part of which was acquired by the government for the Northern Bypass.
That compensation was distributed according to the Will, and the remaining portion (suit property) was later leased and sold.
The Defendants maintained that they attempted to distribute the proceeds according to the Will, but the Plaintiffs demanded a larger share, leading to the dispute.
Issues for Determination:
Whether the Defendants refused to distribute proceeds from the sale and lease of the suit property.
How much each party is entitled to from the proceeds.
What remedies are available to the parties.
The core dispute lied in whether the distribution should follow the Will or be adjusted based on the government's compulsory acquisition of part of the land.
Resolution of the Issues
Issue 1: Whether the Defendants refused to distribute the proceeds of the sale and lease of the suit property
The Plaintiffs contended that after the Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) compensated for the compulsory acquisition of part of the estate land, the Defendants refused to distribute the remaining proceeds of the estate sale equitably. The Defendants countered this argument, stating that the dispute was not about refusal but rather about the mode of distribution—whether in equal shares or per the proportions prescribed in the Will.
The Court determined that the Plaintiffs were unclear in their demands. They initially challenged the sale of the suit property but later withdrew their claim against the buyers, indicating prior involvement in the sale. The evidence presented, including a letter from the Local Council and Resident District Commissioner (RDC), confirmed that the dispute was about the method of distribution rather than outright refusal.
Citing In the Matter of the Estate of Nyombi v. Kagimu & Others (HCT-00-CV-CS-0211-2015), where the court held that estate administrators must distribute proceeds according to either the terms of the Will or an agreed family arrangement,
The court found that the Defendants had not refused to distribute but rather had disagreements over the method of allocation.
Citing Kajubi v. Kabali & Others [2005] UGCA 7, the Court of Appeal emphasized that a claim of refusal to distribute an estate must be supported by clear evidence of deliberate withholding of the estate's proceeds. The same principle was applied in this case to determine that there was no outright refusal but a dispute over proportions.
Therefore, the issue was resolved in the negative.
Issue 2: How much the beneficiaries are entitled to from the proceeds of the sale and lease
The Plaintiffs argued that a family meeting, chaired by Sheikh Rajab Kakooza, agreed that the proceeds should be distributed equally among the four beneficiaries, diverging from the original Will’s stipulations. The Defendants maintained that the Will must govern distribution.
The Court noted a contradiction in the Will’s translations, particularly regarding the acreage allocated to Juma Mukasa Kiwanuka, highlighting inconsistencies that complicated strict adherence to its terms. Additionally, the 1st Defendant admitted receiving more money from UNRA due to his developments on the expropriated land.
Applying the principle from Muganga v. Muganga (HCT-00-CV-CS-0183-2017), which upheld family agreements in estate distribution, the Court ruled that the 1st Defendant’s prior agreement to equal distribution bound him, making his subsequent objection untenable.
The Court also found that the 1st Defendant had already received a disproportionate share due to the government acquisition, confirming the Plaintiffs’ argument that equal distribution was necessary to rectify the imbalance
The Court relied on Administrator General v. Bwanika [1995] UGHC 12, which established that where an Administrator receives a larger share due to external factors (e.g., compulsory acquisition), redistribution may be warranted to ensure fairness among beneficiaries.
The Court thus held that each beneficiary was entitled to an equal share of the proceeds.
Issue 3: Remedies
The Plaintiffs sought general damages and costs, but the Court declined to award these, citing the need for reconciliation among family members.
Justice Khaukha ruled that all four beneficiaries were entitled to equal shares of the proceeds from the sale, amounting to UGX 150,000,000 each.
The Court ordered the 1st Defendant to pay the outstanding balances to the other beneficiaries by April 24, 2025.
Citing Matovu v. Matovu [2016] UGSC 22, the Supreme Court held that in inheritance disputes among family members, courts should prioritize equity and reconciliation over punitive measures such as damages.
Rule of Law
The principle of equity and fair distribution of estate property is governed by the Succession Act, Cap 162 of the Laws of Uganda.
Additionally, under the doctrine of fiduciary duty, estate administrators are obligated to act in the best interests of all beneficiaries and ensure fair distribution of assets.
Estate administrators must distribute proceeds according to either the terms of the Will or an agreed family arrangement
Testamentary freedom allows a testator to dictate property distribution as per Section 23 Succession Act, Cap 162, However, family agreements modifying estate distribution can be binding if all beneficiaries consent, as established in In Re Estate of Mutesasira (HCCS 143 of 2018).
Courts have discretionary power to deny costs where awarding them would exacerbate family disputes as per Section 27 Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71. Courts also prioritize reconciliation in estate disputes, as emphasized in Nalwoga & Anor v. Kiggundu & Ors (HCT-00-CV-CS-0425-2020).
Conclusion
This ruling reaffirms the principles of fair estate distribution and the binding nature of family agreements regarding inheritance.
It underscores the role of equity in modifying bequests when external factors, such as government land acquisitions, disrupt the original proportions in a Will.
Estate Administrators should ensure transparency and engage all beneficiaries in decision-making to prevent disputes.
.jpg)
Comments