THE SUPREME COURT HAS REAFFIRMED THE PRINCIPLE THAT A TESTATOR'S EXPRESS WISHES, AS OUTLINED IN A VALID WILL, TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EXECUTOR'S AUTHORITY.
- Waboga David
- Mar 27
- 3 min read
Area of law: Family Law Practice.
Topic: Estate Planning
Introduction
The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, delivered today, has affirmed that a testator’s express wishes in a will must be upheld. The decision was reached in the case involving the Estate of Sir Edward Mutesa, where the Appellants—Nalinnya Dorothy Nasolo, Nalinnya Sarah Kagere, and Prince David Wasajja—challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2020.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that testators’ express wishes, as articulated in a will, take precedence over general legal principles governing executors’ authority.
Furthermore, the apex court has upheld that when a will contains specific directives on decision-making processes, those directives override the default requirement for joint executor action.
Legal Representatives.
At the hearing of the Appeal, it was brought to the Court's attention that there were two sets of advocates in respect of the First Respondent, with conflicting instructions on the conduct of the Appeal.
Whereas Messrs. Robert Kirunda and Akram Kijambu had been instructed by the executrixes to explore the possibility of appellate mediation in the matter,
Mr. Simon Kiiza had received contrary instructions from the executors to proceed with the Appeal without recourse to mediation.
Summary of Facts
This was an appeal lodged in the Supreme Court by the Administrators of the Estate of Sir Edward Mutesa: Nalinnya(s) Dorothy Nasolo and Sarah Kagere, and Prince David Wasajja ('the Appellants'), contesting the decision of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2020.
Dr. Muhammad Buwule Kasasa ('the First Respondent') passed away during the proceedings, and was substituted by executrixes and executors of his estate: Misses. Sophia Nambalirwa Kasasa, Sarah Nabuwule Kasasa, Janet Nakawunde Kasasa, and Messrs. Issa Kasasa, Moses Kanyike Kasasa, and Anwar Sempira Kasasa.
Key Issue
A dispute arose regarding whether the Appeal should proceed to mediation.
Two conflicting legal positions emerged among the representatives of the First Respondent: one group of executrixes supported mediation, while another group of executors opposed it.
Key Arguments
Messrs. Kirunda and Kijambu relied on Clause 4.4 of the testator’s will and Sections 58 and 71 of the Succession Act, Cap. 268, to argue that decision-making regarding the estate required the participation of the heiress and two other executors or executrixes.
Mr. Kiiza, however, cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Silver Byaruhanga v Emmanuel Ruvugwaho & Another, Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014, to assert that all executors must act jointly at all times, thus requiring consensus for mediation.
Ruling
The Court reaffirmed the testator’s explicit intention, emphasizing:
Clause 4.4 of the Will: Mandates that any estate-related decision must involve the heiress and two other executors or executrixes.
Section 58, Succession Act: Requires that a will’s wording must clearly express the testator’s intentions.
Section 71, Succession Act: Mandates courts to give effect to a testator’s intent as far as possible.
Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Clause 4.4 of the will clearly establishes the decision-making structure, which must be followed.
The heiress, Sophia Nambalirwa, alongside two executrixes, had decided in favor of mediation, which bound the other executors.
The Silver Byaruhanga precedent applied only to land conveyancing under the Registration of Titles Act, distinguishing it from the present case.
The express intentions of the testator, as stated in the will, take precedence over a general rule requiring joint executorship.
Rule of Law
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a testator's express wishes, as outlined in a valid will, must prevail. The Court held that where a will provides specific instructions regarding decision-making among executors and an heiress, those instructions must be followed in accordance with Sections 58 and 71 of the Succession Act. Further, the Court distinguished previous precedent, limiting its applicability to land conveyancing under the Registration of Titles Act. Consequently, the appeal was referred to mediation in accordance with the testator’s directive.
Key Takeaways:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that testators’ express wishes, as articulated in a will, take precedence over general legal principles governing executors’ authority.
When a will contains specific directives on decision-making processes, those directives override the default requirement for joint executor action.
The Court’s interpretation distinguishes between general executor duties and specific statutory obligations related to land transactions.
This ruling reinforces the importance of carefully drafting wills to ensure clarity in decision-making structures within an estate.
Conclusion
This decision underscores the necessity of adhering to a testator’s instructions as outlined in their will.
Executors and legal practitioners should be mindful of the implications of specific clauses governing estate administration.
Where mediation is mandated by the testator’s directive and supported by a majority of executors, the courts will uphold such decisions.
.jpg)
Comments