Banura v The Estate of the Late Andrea Rusoke (HCT-01-CV-MA-0062-2025) [2025] UGHC 543 (4 July 2025)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL**

## **HCT-01-CV-MA-0062-2025**

### **(ARISING OUT OF HCT-01-CV-AC-0053-2007)**

# **IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF A**

## **GRANT OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO THE ESTATE OF**

## **THE LATE NDREA RUSOKE BY MRS. MARY BEATRICE BANURA**

## **(DAUGHTER) OF THE DECEASED**

# **MRS. MARY BEATRICE BANURA :::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS**

## **THE ESTATE OF THE**

**LATE ANDREA RUSOKE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA**

# **RULING**

## **Introduction:**

1. This is an Application brought by *Mary Beatrice Banura*, a daughter of the deceased and surviving administratrix of the estate of the late *Andrea Rusoke*. The Application, filed by Notice of Motion under Section 337 (2) and 337 (3) of the Succession Act Cap 268, Sections 96 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act


Cap 282, Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 16 and Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeks the following Orders:

- **(1)The grant of Letters of Administration dated 3rd day of March 2008 vide Probate and Administration Cause No. 0053 of 2007 be extended for two (02) years to enable the Applicant complete the distribution and management of the remainder of the estate.** - **(2)Any other remedies as Court deems fit.**

### **Background:**

- 2. At the heart of the instant Application is the legacy of *Andrea Rusoke*, a patriarch whose earthly journey concluded some time ago, leaving behind an estate that has, for years, awaited its final chapter. The Applicant is *Mrs. Mary Beatrice Banura*, a daughter, a surviving administratrix, and a lady grappling with the intricate dance of inheritance and its legalities. - 3. *Mrs. Mary Beatrice Banura*, through her supporting affidavit, deposed that she, along with her co-administrator, *Irene Faith Kagoro*, were entrusted with the weighty responsibility of administering the estate of their late father, *Andrea Rusoke*. That their journey began on 3 rd March 2008, when this Court bestowed upon them the Letters of Administration under Probate and Administration Cause No. 0053 of 2007. This legal mandate, she affirmed,


was their compass, guiding them through the labyrinthine process of distributing their father's assets.

- 4. However, *Mrs. Banura* explained in her affidavit that the path to resolution was anything but smooth. She averred that before she and *Ms. Kagoro* took the reins, the estate had been under the stewardship of the late *Yoweri Rwakaikara*. That while he had diligently distributed various properties in the 1980s, adhering to *Andrea Rusoke's* will, a crucial step remained unfulfilled: the transfer of titles into the beneficiaries' names and the subdivision of the vast landholdings in Burahya Block 64 Plot 189 Kabarole, and Block 111 Plots 7, 11, 14, and 39 Kyenjojo. This unfinished business, she indicated, laid the foundation for the complexities that would follow. - 5. As proof of this earlier distribution by the late *Yoweri Rwakaikara*, *Mrs. Banura* attached "Annexture B" to her affidavit, a document she described as minutes of a family meeting or maybe a property distribution list. Unfortunately, its contents were not written in the language of the court, making it incomprehensible for immediate review. - 6. *Mrs. Banura* also deposed that in 2014, a shadow fell upon the administration when *Irene Faith Kagoro*, her co-administrator, passed away. This unforeseen event, she explained, left her as the sole surviving administratrix, shouldering the monumental task alone. To substantiate *Ms. Kagoro's* passing, *Mrs. Banura* included a copy of her death certificate, issued by the National


Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) on October 21, 2021, as "Annexure A2" to her affidavit.

- 7. *Mrs. Banura* deposed that despite these challenges, the beneficiaries, including herself, took possession of their inherited properties. Yet, she noted, years turned into a decade, and the crucial step of transferring these assets into their individual names remained undone. She recounted in her affidavit that her efforts to gather the beneficiaries, urging them to commence the subdivision and mutation of their shares from the original title, but that, only a handful responded to her call. - 8. *Mrs. Banura* further deposed that as the clock ticked, she found herself in a race against time. She stated that she was actively pursuing the subdivision of her portion and those of other beneficiaries, even submitting the original title to the Registrar of Titles for the necessary changes. However, that a looming deadline cast a long shadow since the Letters of Administration were set to expire on 31st May 2025. She filed the instant Application on 30th May 2025 and it was this fear, this pressing need for an extension that brought *Mrs. Banura* before the High Court once more. She seeks a two-year extension of the grant to enable her bring the administration of *Andrea Rusoke's* estate to its rightful conclusion, to dissolve it as swiftly as possible, and to ensure that justice prevailed for all beneficiaries. She emphasized that it is in the interests of justice that an extension be granted.


### **Representation and Hearing:**

- 9. On 30th June 2025, Counsel *Robert Luleti*, representing *Mrs. Banura* from *M/s Mugabe – Luleti & Co. Advocates*, appeared before the court in her absence, explaining that his client was unwell. He informed the court that he had filed written submissions and requested their adoption for the Ruling. - 10. In his written submissions, Counsel *Luleti* reiterated the contents of *Mrs. Banura's* supporting affidavit. He emphasized that the original grant was made before the Succession Amendment Act came into force on 22nd May 2022. He highlighted Section 337(2) of the Succession Amendment Act, which states that grants issued before this date would remain valid for three years from 31st May 2022. He pointed to Section 337(4), which allows for an application to the court for an extension for a "reasonable period." Counsel further cited Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282, which grants this court discretion to extend time, and Section 98, which gives the court unfettered discretion to grant just remedies. He also invoked Section 33 of the Judicature Act, empowering the court to administer justice. - 11. Counsel argued that since the Letters of Administration were set to expire on May 31, 2025, and the estate's administration was incomplete, an extension was necessary. He explained that the Applicant seeks to finalize the administration by converting the leasehold into freehold and transferring the


properties to the beneficiaries. He contended that it is fair and equitable to grant an extension to allow for the completion of administration and the filing of an inventory.

12. Conclusively, Counsel prayed that the court exercises its inherent judicial discretion in the Applicant's favour, granting the prayer for an extension to enable the completion of the distribution and management of the remaining estate. He also sought an award of costs for the application.

### **Issues for Determination**:

13. In my view, the sole issue for determination before this Honourable Court is **whether the conditions for the extension of Letters of Administration have been met.**

### **CONSIDERATION BY COURT**:

14. This is essentially a plea for more time, and the Applicant contends that she needs only two more years to accomplish what ought to have been done in the last 17 years. Applications of this nature are governed by **Section 337** of the **Succession Act, Cap 268**. **Section 337** of the **Succession Act, Cap 268**, deals with the expiry and renewal of letters of administration issued before the 31st day of May 2022. **Section 337(2)** provides that: *"A grant of probate or letters of administration issued by a court of competent jurisdiction before the 31st day of May, 2022, shall remain in force for a period of three years from the*


*31st day of May, 2022,"* while **Section 337 (4)** provides that, *"the duration of a grant of probate or letters of administration referred to in subsections (2) may, on application to court by the executor or executrix or an administrator or administratrix of an estate, be extended for a reasonable period determined by court."*

- 15. The legislative intent behind the introduction of these expiry dates was to curb the pervasive issue of prolonged estate administration, foster accountability among administrators, ensure diligent action, and ultimately safeguard beneficiaries' interests through the timely winding up of estates. - 16. The original grant of Letters of Administration to *Mrs. Mary Beatrice Banura* and the late *Irene Faith Kagoro* was issued on 3rd March 2008. Applying Section 337(2) of the Succession Act, this grant, having been issued before 31st May 2022, remained valid for three years from 31st May 2022, meaning it was set to expire on May 31, 2025. The Applicant filed this application for extension on 30th May 2025, demonstrating an effort to seek relief before the expiry of the grant. - 17. Extension of the validity of a grant of letters of administration is not automatic. The Court, in considering an application for extension under **Section 337(4)**, must be satisfied that certain conditions, which are consistent with the legislative intent of promoting diligent administration and protecting


**7 |** P a g e

beneficiaries' interests, have been met. In my view the conditions for the extension of letters of administration, may include the following:

- (a) **Valid and reasonable explanation for non-completion:** The Applicant must provide a justifiable reason why the administration could not be concluded within the initial grant period. - (b)**Necessity and usefulness of extension:** The extension must be essential for the proper and complete administration of the estate, indicating that the estate is not yet fully administered. - (c) **Diligence of the applicant:** The Applicant must demonstrate consistent effort in administering the estate and that they have not been negligent. - (d)**Best interests of beneficiaries:** The extension should serve the beneficiaries' best interests and not prejudice their rights. - 18. In the instant case, the Applicant's primary explanation for the delay is the passing of her co-administrator, *Irene Faith Kagoro*, in 2014. While the death of a co-administrator is undoubtedly a significant event, it is crucial to note that when *Irene Faith Kagoro* passed on, the Applicant did not take any immediate steps to inform the Court or seek a rectification of the grant. It is trite law that the death of the co-administrator renders the letters of administration so granted court inoperative. Such letters of administration ought to be revoked and a new grant issued. **In the matter of the estate of the late Javuru Apollo Micheal HCMA No. 053 of 2016**, it was held that; -

 *"There is only one way in which the name of an administrator of an estate may be removed from a grant and that is by revocation of the grant and the making of a fresh grant. A court cannot simply strike out the name of one administrator from a grant and continue on without revoking the grant. A fresh grant should be made because a grant is a public document and often must be produced to third parties as proof that the holder is the personal representative and thus enable him or her to administer the estate."*

19. This lack of prompt action to regularize the administration after the death of a co-administrator raises serious questions about the "reasonableness" of the explanation for the prolonged non-completion. **Section 268 of the Succession Act, Cap 268**, mandates that where administration has been granted to more than one administrator, they must **act jointly**. Therefore, the death of a coadministrator, as in this case with *Irene Faith Kagoro* in 2014, rendered the grant **inoperative** requiring the remaining administrator to take steps to have the inoperative grant revoked and a fresh one issued. In the instant case, for **11 years**, from 2014 when *Irene Faith Kagoro* died until the filing of this application in 2025, the grant has been effectively inoperative, yet the Applicant appears to have been "comfortable" with this state of affairs. In my view, this demonstrates a clear lack of diligence in proactively managing the

estate's affairs.


20. Additionally, a perusal of the letters of administration granted jointly to the Applicant and the late *Irene Faith Kagoro* indicates that they were duty bound to file an inventory to the estate of the late *Andrea Rusoke* within 6 months of the issuance of the grant. This is a mandatory statutory requirement under **Section 273 (1)** of the **Succession Act Cap. 268** which provides as follows:

*"An executor or executrix or administrator or administratrix shall, within six months from the grant of probate or letters of administration, or within such further time as the court which granted the probate or letters may from time to time appoint, exhibit in that court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession, and all the credits, and also all the debts owing by any person to which the executor or executrix or administrator or administratrix is entitled in that character; and shall in like manner within one year from the grant, or within such further time as the court may from time to time appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to his or her hands, and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of."*

21. There is no evidence whatsoever that an inventory was ever filed, neither by *Mrs. Banura* nor by the late *Ms. Kagoro* during the six years they were both administrators (2008-2014). This is a fundamental and mandatory requirement of estate administration. In the case of **Sefo Tumwesigye vs. Vangirista**


**Baganutengyera & Anor, Land Civil Suit No. 0053 of 2015**, *Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya* held that;

*"An inventory justifies the possession of the Letters of Administration. It is evidence, that there is property to administer on the deceased's behalf. It is proof that Court has not inadvertently armed anyone with tools for a fishing expedition into the properties of the deceased which may or may not be existent. An inventory is a mandatory requirement which must be honoured by the Administrators/ Executors of the deceased's estate within the stated period. The Plaintiff did not file an inventory after she was issued with Letters of Administration to her deceased father's estate. This in itself, points to her uncertainty about whether there was indeed undistributed property for her to administer out of her late father's estate or not."*

- 22. In **Abubaker Sebalamu Ganya vs. Yasmin Nalwoga SCCA No. 14 of 2017**, the Supreme Court unequivocally guided that the filing of an inventory is mandatory and time-specific under the law and that failure by an administrator to comply with these provisions amounts to an offense under Section 117 (now 103) of the Penal Code Act. - 23. Therefore, the Applicant's failure to file the mandatory inventory for the entire duration of the grant, which spans **17 years** since its issuance in 2008, is a significant breach of her duties as an administratrix. This, coupled with the


**11-year delay** in addressing the inoperability of the grant after the death of her co-administrator, strongly suggests a profound lack of **diligence** in administering the estate. The Applicant ought to have also sought the revocation of the grant to remove the deceased's name as a co-administrator and the eventual issuance of a new grant, which has never been done. An inoperative grant cannot be extended, and an Applicant who has never filed an inventory or sought extension of time within which to file one on justifiable grounds is also not entitled to an extension of the validity of her letters of administration.

24. In the instant case, the Applicant has never filed an inventory and in light of the case of **Sefo Tumwesigye vs. Vangirista Baganutengyera & Anor, (Supra)** there is therefore no proof that there exists any property for administration under the estate of the late *Andrea Rusoke*. The Applicant stated that prior to the issuance of the letters of administration, there was distribution of the estate of the deceased by the late *Yoweri Rwakaikara* who purportedly distributed the properties in the 1980s in accordance with *Andrea Rusoke's* will and that the only thing left is the subdivision of the properties. She sought to prove this by adducing Annexture "B" which is not in the language of court and therefore could not be comprehended. **Section 88** of **the Civil Procedure Act** provides that the language of Court is English and as such, the documents submitted as Annextures to pleadings must have an


English translation. A document which is not translated in the language of the Court which is English cannot be admitted in evidence. However, even if the document was in the language of Court, it cannot be used as a substitute for an inventory and any distribution of estate property prior to the issuance of letters of administration is an illegality that cannot be condoned by this Court.

- 25. While the Applicant states that she is now actively pursuing the subdivision and transfer of properties, these actions appear to be belated attempts to rectify a long period of inaction. The Applicant also never sought any extension of time within which to file an inventory. Instead, the prayer only featured in Counsel's written submissions without any evidence to support it. In my view, Submissions by Counsel are meant to argue points of law and fact based on the evidence presented to the court through pleadings and affidavits, not to introduce new prayers or facts that were not formally pleaded. - 26.**Order 6** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** outlines the importance of pleadings, and to allow a prayer to be introduced solely through submissions would undermine this fundamental principle of procedural fairness and due process. In **Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd vs. East African Development Bank SCCA No. 33 of 1992**, the Supreme Court emphasized that parties are bound by their pleadings and that courts should not decide a case on issues not pleaded unless they arise directly from the pleadings and are fully canvassed by the parties. Similarly, in **S. K. Singh vs. D. P. Singh [1995] KALR 28**, it


was held that a party cannot introduce new issues or prayers through submissions that were not part of the original pleadings.

- 27. In the instant case, the applicant's Notice of Motion clearly sought only two orders: an extension of the grant for two years and any other remedies as the Court deems fit. The prayer for an extension of time to file an inventory was conspicuously absent. There is also no evidence within the Applicant's Affidavit in Support of the Application to warrant extension of time within which to file an inventory. Therefore, this Court cannot consider or grant a remedy that was not formally pleaded and one which lacks evidence to support it, regardless of its mention in Counsel's submissions. Counsel's role is to argue the case as pleaded, not to supplement or alter the pleadings through argument. - 28. The legislative intent behind **Section 337** of the **Succession Act** is to curb prolonged administration and ensure the timely winding up of estates. Granting an extension in this instance would effectively condone a significant period of inaction and non-compliance with statutory duties and requirements, thereby undermining the purpose of the law. The Applicant's explanations do not reasonably justify the prolonged delay, nor do her past actions demonstrate the requisite diligence expected of an administratrix. The Court must uphold the principles of diligent administration and accountability.

## **Conclusion and Orders**:


- 29. For the reasons elaborated above, I find that the Applicant, *Mrs. Mary Beatrice Banura*, has failed to justify her application for the extension of the duration Letters of Administration. Her explanations for the prolonged delay in administering the estate and her lack of diligence in complying with fundamental statutory requirements, such as filing an inventory and promptly addressing the inoperability of the grant, are not reasonable or justifiable. Therefore: - **(1)The Application for extension of a Grant of Letters of Administration is hereby denied.**

**(2)The Applicant shall bear the costs of this Application.**

I so Order.

**Dated at Fort Portal this 4th day of July 2025**


Vincent Wagona

**High Court Judge**

**FORTPORTAL**

**Ruling delivered on 14th July 2025.**