Darshan-Pal Singh Panesar & Others v Jasper Singh Puaar & Signum Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 1211 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 46 (10 July 2025)

Full Case Text

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA **(FAMILY DIVISION)** APPLICATION MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 1211 OF 2025 (ARISING FROM ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO. 0819 OF 2023)

$\mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1}$

1. DARSHAN-PAL SINGH PANESAR 2. AMRITPAL SINGH PANESAR **EXAMPLICANTS** 3. MOHINDERPAL SINGH PANESAR 4. SURINDER-PAL SINGH PANESAR 5. BHUPINDERPAL SINGH PANESAR (Through AMRITPAL SINGH PANESAR Donee of Power of Attorney)

## **VERSUS**

1. JASWIR SINGH PUAAR ALIAS JASWIR SINGH PAUUAR *(Executor of the Will of the Late Gurcharan Singh Panesar)* **2. SIGNUM ADVOCATES::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**

## **BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOHN EUDES KEITIRIMA**

## **RULING**

1]. The applicants brought this application by way of Notice of Motion under Section 34(1) and Section 98 of the CPA Cap 282, Section 37 and 41(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 16, Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the CPR.

$1$ | Page

2]. The applicants are seeking for orders that; -

- The 1st respondent as the executor of the estate of the late $(i)$ Gurcharan Singh Panesar and the 2nd respondent being the law firm that received and has in its custody the proceeds of the sale of the estate commercial property comprised in Namirembe LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 be compelled to comply with the order of this Court mandating the 1st respondent to distribute the estate by ordering him and the $2nd$ respondent to distribute the said sums equitably among the applicants who are the beneficiaries of the estate, less any expenses, charges and or costs. - $(ii)$ The 1st respondent be compelled by Court to comply with the order of this Court mandating him to administer and distribute the estate of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar by ordering him to immediately cause a transfer of the estate property comprised in LRV 489, Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue **Kololo** into the names of the applicants as their bequest and

2 | Page

beneficial interest, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar.

- In the alternative to (ii) above, the Court be pleased to grant an $(iii)$ order directly vesting the estate property comprised in LRV, 489, Folio 14, Malcom X Avenue Kololo into the names of the applicants as their bequest and beneficial interest pursuant and in accordance with the terms of the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar. - Costs of the application be borne by the estate. $(iv)$

3]. The application is supported by the affidavit of Amritpal Singh Panesar herein after referred to as "the 2nd applicant" who stated inter alia; -

$(i)$ That the applicants are the biological sons of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar who died testate on 18th January, 2002 and the applicants are beneficiaries of his estate entitled to a beneficial interest of the property or any proceeds arising out of a sale of property forming part of the estate.

3 | Page

- The 1st respondent is the executor of the Will of the late $(ii)$ Gurcharan Singh Panesar having been granted Probate by this Court mandating him to administer and distribute the estate amongst the applicants as the beneficiaries thereof, pursuant to and in accordance with the Will of the said late. - That the $2^{nd}$ respondent is a firm of lawyers trading under the (iii) name and style of Signum Advocates who were retained by the applicants to pursue an application for Probate in Uganda on behalf of the estate but in the name of the $1^{st}$ respondent as he had declined to make the application. The $2^{nd}$ respondent was maintained by the $1^{st}$ respondent, as the executor on behalf of the estate to act as transactional lawyers in the sale of the estate property comprised in Namirembe LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot $12.$ - That the 1st respondent with the knowledge of the applicants, $(iv)$ disposed of the estate property comprised in Namirembe LRV 211, Folio 16 Plot 12 and the proceeds of the same have since not been distributed amongst the applicants as beneficiaries

4 | Page

thereof, but are still withheld by the $2^{nd}$ respondent acting on the instructions of the $1^{st}$ respondent contrary to the order of the Court, mandating the 1st respondent to administer and distribute the estate among the applicants.

- That the respondents have jointly and or severally $(v)$ intentionally refused and/or neglected to distribute the said proceeds to the applicants despite the knowledge that the applicants as the beneficiaries of the estate are entitled to the same. - That part of the property bequeathed to the applicants under $(vi)$ the Will of the said late is property comprised in LRV 489, Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue Kololo. However, the 1st respondent in blatant non-compliance with the order of this Court deliberately refused to cause the said property to be transferred into the names of the applicants pursuant to and in accordance with the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar. - That the 1st respondent has failed to administer and distribute $(vii)$ the estate in accordance with the grant and Probate and can

nek

$7$ Ma

5 | Page

only do so promptly if ordered by this Court through issuing the above orders against him together with the $2nd$ respondent being the custodian of the proceeds of sale of the estate property.

(viii) That it is just and fair that the application is granted with all the prayers sought therein.

4]. In his affidavit in reply, Jaswir Singh Puaar hereinafter referred to as "the first applicant" states inter alia; -

- $(i)$ That in the process of executing his mandate to the estate of the said late, the applicants as beneficiaries of the estate formed an intention to dispose of property comprised in LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 Namirembe and the 2nd respondent was maintained to handle the instruction. - $(ii)$ That since the conclusion of the sale of the said property, all his requests to the $2^{nd}$ respondent to have the proceeds of the sale sent to him so that he could share it among the beneficiaries of the said estate proved futile.

6 | Page

- $(iii)$ That the applicants themselves have interfered and stopped the $2nd$ respondent from transferring the proceeds of sale of the property at Namirembe to him on the USD estate account which he had opened for onward distribution to the beneficiaries - That the 2nd respondent reneged on their responsibility to file $(iv)$ an inventory with the Court despite his constant reminders to do so. - That the Letters of Probate are still valid until the 10th day of $(v)$ June 2026 and as the executor he is still involved in the process of executing the mandate given to him by the Court and the Will of the said late. - That to fully execute his mandate as an executor, he requires $(vi)$ funds and resources to among other things do the following; - - Distribute it among the beneficiaries of the estate of the $(a)$ said late.

7 | Page

- Settle tax liabilities and interest that has accumulated $(b)$ with the HM Revenue and customs in the United Kingdom. - Pay taxes, rates and fees involved in the process of sale $(c)$ of Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue, Kampala. - Pay inheritance tax currently outstanding on the estate of $(d)$ the said late in the United Kingdom. - Pay the costs involved in the filing of an inventory and $(e)$ final account of the estate with the Court. - Transferring all other properties in the United Kingdom $(f)$ to the respective beneficiaries as per the Will. - That before he proceeded to sell off the said property in the (vii) said estate, he had to first secure a tax clearance certificate from Uganda Revenue Authority arising out of the sale of the other property in Namirembe because without it would be exposed to a tax liability as an executor which the applicants want to circumvent.

8 | Page - (viii) That the proceeds of all the properties ought to be transferred to him as an executor to allow him to fully and conclusively execute his mandate without any hardship and/or difficulty and thereafter render a full account to the beneficiaries and this Court. - $(ix)$ That as an executor he is aware that he must carry out his mandate for and on behalf of the beneficiaries and cannot solely act on any estate property for his individual interest and/or fail to render an accountability to the beneficiaries because doing so has consequences. - $(x)$ That the applicants as beneficiaries entered into a private arrangement with the other two siblings to divide the estate into seven portions without informing him or seeking his consent as the appointed executor. - $(xi)$ That the applicants also accepted payments of approximately 25,000 Pounds each from their eldest brother in exchange for agreeing to remove one of the U. K properties from the estate.

9 | Page

1 nel mg

- $(xii)$ That he has acted at all times in good faith and with diligence in his duties as executor and the delay in finalizing the distribution of the estate property lies with the applicants themselves who have interfered with the release of the estate funds without providing any lawful or rational explanation. - That the $2^{nd}$ respondent failed in its professional obligations to $(xiii)$ act in accordance with the Will and instructions of the executor despite being provided with the necessary account details. - That the failure of the $2^{nd}$ respondent to release the funds has $(xiv)$ resulted in financial loss to the estate including potential interest and penalties accruing to the U. K tax authority. - That this application shall delay the conclusion of his mandate $(xv)$ as an executor and attract further unnecessary costs to the estate to the detriment of the beneficiaries.

5]. In his affidavit in reply Horace Nuwasasira an advocate practicing with Signum Advocates the 2nd respondent states as follows; -

10 | Page

- That he is aware that the $2^{nd}$ respondent was instructed to $(i)$ represent the estate of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar including applying for grant of Probate in favour of the 1st respondent as executor of the deceased's Will to enable him to administer and distribute the estates property in Uganda to the entitled beneficiaries. - That although the $2^{nd}$ respondent was initially contacted by the $(ii)$ $2nd$ applicant, who is also the attorney for the other applicants and beneficiaries, the 1st respondent being the named executor, confirmed the instructions and proceeded to appear in Court in the matter filed by the 2nd respondent and at no point did the 1st respondent deny instructing the 2nd respondent to act on behalf of the estate. - That he is aware that the estate of the late Gurcharan Singh $(iii)$ Panesar includes among other properties the land comprised in LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12, Namirembe and LRV 489, Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue, Kololo.

$11$ | Page

- $(iv)$ That in the application for the grant of probate, it was expressly indicated by the 1st respondent that the grant sought in Uganda was limited to the estate property located in Uganda. That the probate was not intended to extend to or cover properties or liabilities situated in the United Kingdom. - $(v)$ That as part of its instructions the $2nd$ respondent was availed a copy of the deceased's Will in which the aforementioned properties were specifically bequeathed to the applicants to deal with as they saw fit. - That in addition to the probate instructions, the applicants $(vi)$ expressed their wish to retain the $2nd$ respondent to act as their transactional counsel in the intended sale of the property comprised in LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 Namirembe. - That the 2nd respondent duly advised the 1st respondent and the $(vii)$ applicants as follows; - - That upon the sale of the property at LRV 211, Folio 16, $(a)$ Plot 12, Namirembe and after the deduction of all commissions, legal fees and any associated costs or debts

12 | Page

relevant to the Ugandan estate, the net proceeds would be distributed among the applicants who are the beneficial owners under the Will.

- $(b)$ That with respect to the property comprised in LRV 489, Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue, Kololo, the same ought to be transferred into the name of the executor and thereafter into the names of the applicants as beneficiaries. - $(viii)$ That the above notwithstanding the 1st respondent insisted that the proceeds of the sale be deposited into his personal account instead of an estate account, which gave rise to a dispute with the applicants and as a result the $2nd$ respondent acting as a custodian of the proceeds, retained the funds in its clients' account pending resolution of the dispute between the applicants and the 1st respondent. - That the $2^{nd}$ respondent has never declined to release the $(ix)$ proceeds of the sale of LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 Namirembe

$13$ | Page

$n$ energy $n$

and its prepared to disburse the same to the applicants or the 1st respondent as may be directed by this Court.

- $(x)$ That he is further aware that the 1st respondent has never provided particulars of any outstanding debts or taxes in respect of the Ugandan estate property, including that comprised in LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 Namirembe. - $(xi)$ That the agreement of sale of the said property specified that all taxes relating to the transaction were to be borne by the purchaser. - That the $1^{st}$ respondent has not drawn to the attention of the $2^{nd}$ $(xii)$ respondent to any inheritance tax or liabilities in the United Kingdom, and in any event such liabilities if any, do not arise from or relate to the Ugandan estate property and are only payable from the U. K estate. - $(xiii)$ That the only additional expense potentially deductible from the sale proceeds would be the cost of filing an inventory and final account which the 1st respondent has not requested to date.

Anelos

14 | Page

- That the $2^{nd}$ respondent has executed its mandate diligently, $(xiv)$ including advising both the applicants and the 1st respondent, and does not in principle object to the orders sought, save that it will abide by the directions of this Court regarding the sale proceeds. - $(XV)$ That it would be fair and just that should the application be granted, the $2^{nd}$ respondent is not penalized for withholding the proceeds of sale as it acted responsibly and reasonably in the circumstances.

The parties filed their written submissions which I have considered in determining this application.

- 6]. The issues to determine now are; - - Whether the 1st respondent as the executor of the estate of $(i)$ the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar and the 2nd respondent being the law firm that received and has in its custody the proceeds of the sale of the estate commercial property comprised in Namirembe LRV 211 Folio 16, Plot 12 should

15 | Page

$er$

be compelled to comply with the order of this Court mandating the 1st respondent to distribute the estate by ordering him and the 2nd respondent to distribute the said sums equitably amongst the applicants who are the beneficiaries of the estate, less any expenses, charges and or costs.

- Whether the 1st respondent should be compelled by Court $(ii)$ to comply with the order of this Court mandating him to administer and distribute the estate of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar by ordering him to immediately cause a transfer of the estate property comprised in LRV 489 Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue Kololo into the names of the applicants as their bequest and beneficial interest, pursuant to and in accordance in the terms of the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar. - In the alternative to (ii) above whether this Court should $(iii)$ grant an order directly vesting the estate property comprised in LRV 489, Folio 14 Malcom X Avenue Kololo

16 | Page

$7$ Mg meQ into the names of the applicants as their bequest and beneficial interest, pursuant and in accordance with the terms of the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar.

Whether the costs of this application should be borne by $(iv)$ the estate.

I will resolve all the issues concurrently as they are related.

7]. Section 267(1) of the Succession Act provides that "subject to sections 23 and 30(2), an executor, executrix or administrator or administratrix as may be applicable, may with the written consent of the surviving spouse and all the lineal descendants of the deceased person, dispose of the property of the deceased wholly or in part.

(5) The executor, executrix or administratrix shall account for the proceeds of sale –

(a) in case of a sale under subsection $(1)$ or $(4)$ to the beneficiaries; and (b) in the case of sale under subsection (2) to Court."

$17$ | Page

$\n *mp*\n$

net?

8]. The applicants who are biological sons of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar who died testate on 18th January 2002 are the beneficiaries of the estate and are entitled to the beneficial interest to the property or any proceeds arising out of the sale of property forming part of the estate.

9]. The late Gurcharan Singh Panesar in his last Will and Testament bequeathed all his properties in Uganda to the applicants. These include properties comprised in Namirembe LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 and LRV 489, Folio 14, Plot 52 Malcom X Avenue Kololo.

10]. It is not disputed that the 1st respondent with the knowledge of the applicants disposed of the estate property comprised in Namirembe LRV 211, Folio 16, Plot 12 at a consideration of USD 1,300,000/=. It is equally not disputed that the said proceeds of sale have not been distributed to the beneficiaries who are the applicants in this case.

11]. The $1^{st}$ respondent claims that it is the $2^{nd}$ respondent who has frustrated the process of sharing the said proceeds to the applicants who are the beneficiaries to the said proceeds of sale. On the other hand, the $2nd$ respondent claims that a dispute arose when the 1st respondent insisted

18 | Page

mety

that the proceeds from the sale of Plot 12 be paid into his personal account rather than the estate account or directly to the applicants. That it was a result of the said conflict that they retained the proceeds in its client's account.

12]. In his affidavit in reply the $1^{st}$ respondent stated that the $2^{nd}$ respondent reneged on their responsibility to file an inventory with the Court despite his constant reminders.

13]. It is pertinent to note that the $1^{st}$ respondent was granted probate for the estate of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar on the 10th June 2024. The 1st respondent was expected to make a full and true inventory of the estate by 10th December 2024 and to render a true account of the said estate within one year which he should have done by $10^{th}$ June 2025. This has never been done.

14]. The 1st respondent cannot abdicate his responsibility by claiming that it should have been the 2nd respondent to do so because as an executor who was granted Probate that responsibility solely lies on him.

19 | Page

Thre Coma

15]. The $2^{nd}$ respondent was therefore right to retain the proceeds of the said sale on its client account a dispute having arose between the 1st respondent and the applicants over how the proceeds should have been managed.

16]. The 1st respondent was in breach of his statutory obligation to render an inventory and final account of the said estate within the statutory timeline and the applicants were therefore justified to mistrust him. Under Section 230(1)(2) (e) of the Succession Act Cap 268 provides that a grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled on grounds that the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or final account.

17]. The $1^{st}$ respondent claims that there are tax obligations he had to meet in the U. K before he could distribute the proceeds to the rightful beneficiaries. There is no provision in the Will that links the said properties to taxes or obligations outside Uganda. Those taxes would not apply to properties in Uganda.

$20$ | Page

18]. It follows that any U. K related taxes or other expenses must be paid exclusively from the proceeds of sale of the U. K properties and not from the Ugandan properties.

19]. I have equally seen the sale agreement that was attached to the application. It states that "all taxes associated with the sale, including but not limited to 6% withholding taxes are the responsibility of the **purchaser**". Therefore, the $1^{st}$ respondent bears no tax obligation with regard to the said sale apart from the one stated in the sale agreement.

20]. I therefore find no justifiable reason for withholding the proceeds of the sale of the said property to the applicants who are the beneficiaries of the said estate.

21]. I will therefore grant this application with the following orders; -

- The $2^{nd}$ respondent is to distribute the proceeds of the said $(i)$ sale to the applicants who are the beneficiaries less any expenses, charges and or costs. - $(ii)$ I will grant an order vesting the estate property comprised in LRV 489, Folio 14 Malcom X Avenue Kololo into the

$2$ mg

mety

21 | Page

names of the applicants as their bequest and beneficial interest, pursuant and in accordance with the terms of the Will of the late Gurcharan Singh Panesar.

- The 2nd respondent is to furnish a report to this Court $(iii)$ within a period of thirty days from the date hereof detailing how the said proceeds were distributed to the applicants. - $(iv)$ The costs of this application will be borne by the estate.

Jney 21

Hon. Justice John Eudes Keitirima.

10/07/2025