A family is in dispute over an estate, leading the High Court to revoke the previous grant of administration after they have become inoperative. The court then appoints a neutral administrator since the parties cannot agree on one. Despite the disagreements, all parties accept the distribution of assets as per a prior consent judgment. However, a lawyer who has represented one of the parties argues that they should be paid from the estate's income. The court agrees that lawyers should be paid for their work.
If the lawyer's payment comes from the estate’s income and all beneficiaries had already agreed on asset distribution, does this mean they unknowingly agreed to reduce their inheritance? Why or why not?
Nshimiye J. answers this question in Kateregga and Another v Sekibala and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 439 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 67 (20 February 2025).
Generally, lawyers that have done work ought to be paid for their service. In this case, the estate property that is causing disharmony among the children of the late David Livingstone Ssekibaala, was owned by the late David Livingstone Ssekibaala. It is thus proper that estate income caters for the legal costs to the lawyers representing the different parties especially in cases where a settlement has been reached by the beneficiaries by filing a consent judgment
FACTS
The estate of the late David Livingstone Sekibaala was subjected to legal disputes among his 25 children since 2012. Initially, a grant of probate was issued in 1989 to multiple administrators, but conflicts arose regarding estate management. Various legal proceedings followed, including High Court cases and an appeal that was later withdrawn.
A civil suit Civil Suit 52 of 2018 led to a consent judgment on 4th October 2024, which revoked the original grant and appointed Kizza Kateregga and Prossy Nantale as new estate managers. The judgment also determined the distribution of key properties, with the widow receiving 50% of one major property and the 25 children sharing the rest.
Subsequently, an application was filed to formally revoke the 1989 grant and issue a fresh grant to the new administrators. During court proceedings, two additional children of the deceased were added as respondents. Despite court directives, only the applicants filed submissions.
Whether the grant of administration vide High Court Administration Cause MMB 16 of 1989 should be revoked.
The High Court has reaffirmed that, upon revocation of probate or letters of administration, it has the authority to appoint a new administrator deemed fit and proper under Section 230(5) of the Succession Act Cap. 268.
In this case High Court Administration Cause 16 of 1989, the previous grant was revoked, and the court considered new appointments.
The parties involved, including beneficiaries and respondents, failed to agree on the appointment of new administrators.
The Court ordered that they appoint the Administrator General.
Despite the dispute over administration, all parties agreed on the distribution of the estate as outlined in a consent judgment High Court Civil Suit 52 of 2018.
Due to the ongoing disputes, the court found it necessary to appoint a neutral administrator.
The Administrator General was appointed as the administrator of the estate under Section 247(b) of the Succession Act Cap. 268.
Nothing in this Part shall be deemed to preclude— (a) the Administrator General from applying to the court for letters of administration; (b) the court from granting letters of administration to the Administrator General,
in any case where the court is empowered under this or any other Part of this Act to grant letters of administration to any person other than an executor or executrix appointed under the will of the testator or testatrix”.(Bold emphasis mine).
As for the costs.
The court reaffirmed that it is the law that costs follow the event as is provided in SECTION 27(2) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 282. The 3rd and 4th respondents expressed their objection to costs being paid out of the revenue of the estate of the late David Livingstone Ssekibaala as stipulated in clause 6 of the consent judgment in High Court Civil suit 52 of 2018.
Generally, lawyers that have done work ought to be paid for their service. In this case, the estate property that is causing disharmony among the children of the late David Livingstone Ssekibaala, was owned by late David Livingstone Ssekibaala. It is thus proper that estate income caters for the legal costs to the lawyers representing the different parties especially in cases where a settlement has been reached by the beneficiaries by filing a consent judgment
Therefore court could not interfere with this clause.
The High Court, under Section 37 of the Judicature Act, resolved the estate administration dispute of the late David Livingstone Ssekibaala. Given the failure of parties to agree on an administrator, the court appointed the Administrator General as the legal representative of the estate.
The court ordered the Commissioner of Land Registration to cancel the name of Abisagi Sekibala as the proprietor of LRV 462 Folio 5 Plot 41 on High Street, Mbarara City.
The property is to be registered in the name of the Administrator General as the administrator of the estate.
Legal Costs and Responsibilities
The estate's income will cover the legal costs of the matter.
The Administrator General is responsible for filing an inventory in the High Court.
Implications
This ruling highlights the court’s discretion in resolving administration disputes and ensuring an estate is managed impartially.
The decision also reinforces the law for neutral administration where internal family conflicts hinder estate execution.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Comments