Huo & Another v Dong (Civil Suit 22 of 2018) [2024] UGHCFD 79 (5 November 2024)

#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [FAMILY DIVISION] CIVIL SUIT NO. 22 OF 2018**

#### **1. HUO YAN FANG**

**2. JIN BAO (KIM BO) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS** (Suing through a next friend Huo Yan Fang)

#### **VERSUS**

# **DONG HOON KIM :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT JUDGMENT BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CELIA NAGAWA**

#### **1.0 Background.**

- 1.1 The Plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 22 of 2018 against the Defendant seeking the following orders; - a) A declaration that the Defendant has been fraudulent in managing the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun and executing his last known will. - b) Revocation and/or cancellation of the Probate granted to the Defendant vide Probate No. 323 of 2012. - c) An order to the Defendant to surrender the Probate granted to him to this Honorable Court. - d) An order to give an account of the estate to the Plaintiffs from the date of grant of Probate to the Defendant to date. - e) An order nullifying all the fraudulent transactions by the Defendant. - f) Grant of letters of administration to the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun to the 1st Plaintiff. - g) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to their shares in the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun as per his last will and testament.


- h) An order directing the distribution of the property comprised in the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun as per his last will and testament. - i) An order directing the Defendant to transmit 40 shares in Sillah Limited as per the last will and testament of the Late Kim Dong Yun. - j) An order to distribute the property comprised in the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun and not included in his last will and testament equitably amongst the beneficiaries. - k) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from any further dealing and/or undertaking any dealings with the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun. - l) General damages. - m)Costs of the Suit.

## **2.0 Representation.**

2.1 The Plaintiffs were represented by Jeremy Kibuuka Musoke and Tendo Andrew of Kibuuka, Musoke & Tendo Advocates & Legal Consultants while the Defendant was represented by Steven Kabuye of ABMAK Associates, Advocates & Legal Consultants.

# **3.0 Background of the Suit.**

- **3.1** The Late Kim Dong Yun passed away on 7th June, 2011, leaving behind a will dated 8th March, 2010, which appointed the Defendant as the executor of the Will. In this Will, the deceased named the following children and close relatives: - Mr. Gyeong Hyi Kim son (adult) - Mr. Seon Geon Kim son (adult) - Ms. Jin Bao (Kim Bo) daughter (minor/2nd Plaintiff) - Mr. Dong Hoon Kim brother (Defendant)


- Mrs. Lee Hyi Sik mother - Huo Yan Fang wife (1st Plaintiff) - 3.1.1. The 1st Plaintiff contends that the deceased made a second Will on 17th April, 2011. Furthermore, that the Defendant acted fraudulently in the Probate application process and in the administration of the deceased's estate, intending to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rightful inheritance. - 3.1.2. The 1st Plaintiff avers that the Defendant failed to execute the Will according to the deceased's wishes, neglecting to file in Court an inventory and accounts for the estate since the grant of the Letters of Probate. Additionally, the 1st Plaintiff contended that the Defendant allegedly abandoned the 2nd Plaintiff, leaving the 1st Plaintiff to care for her alone. - 3.1.3. In his defense, the Defendant denied any allegations of fraud during the Probate application process or in the administration of the deceased's estate. He argued that, as the named executor of the Will, he was not legally obligated to consult the Plaintiffs or other beneficiaries prior to obtaining Letters of Probate. - 3.1.4. Regarding the failure to distribute the property bequeathed to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant claimed that some properties had been sold by the deceased while he was still alive. He stated that the only assets that came into his possession were 80 shares in Sillah Limited and an equitable interest in land comprised in LRV 3354 Folio 16, located in Kyadondo Block 273, Plot 3072 at Katuso. - 3.1.5. Concerning the property in Illsan, South Korea, the Defendant asserted that such property could not be included in the Probate petition, as the High Court only has jurisdiction to grant Probate for property located in Uganda.


- 3.1.6. As regards the failure to transfer 40 shares in Sillah Limited to the 1st Plaintiff, the Defendant contended that the 1st Plaintiff rejected these shares and instead insisted on selling the company property at Mulago based on the contested will, which he claims is invalid. That following the 1st Plaintiff's rejection of the 40 shares, he decided to hold the entire 80 shares in trust as executor and stated that he has always been willing to transfer the 40 shares, however, the 1st Plaintiff has shown no interest in progressing the company business. - 3.1.7. The Defendant argued that the omission to file the inventory was also not willful as he had been advised by his counsel that he could only file the inventory after the 1st Plaintiff accepted the shares and the distribution of the deceased's estate was complete. - 3.1.8. The Defendant also denied neglecting the Plaintiffs asserting that ever since the death of the deceased, he has provided for their upkeep, rent, and paid the 2nd Plaintiff's school fees, despite the modest profits from Sillah Limited. He also contended that the 1st Plaintiff has failed to account for a sum of USD 200,000 left with her by the deceased for the education of the 2nd Plaintiff claiming that she has taken more from the deceased's estate than any other beneficiary.

### **3.2. Issues for resolution before this Court.**

- 3.2.1. The parties framed the following issues for court's determination. - 1. Whether the Defendant disclosed all the properties pertaining to the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun in his Petition for Probate? - 2. Whether the Defendant is liable for fraudulent management of the estate of the Late Kim Don Yun? - 3. Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun disposed of some of his properties prior to his death?


- 4. Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun made any changes to his will prior to his death? - 5. Whether the Defendant has mismanaged the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun? - 6. Whether in view of what the 1st Plaintiff has so far received from the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun, the 1st Plaintiff is still entitled to 40 shares in Sillah Ltd? - 7. Whether the executor of the will carried out his duties and whether there is reasonable cause for not? - 8. What remedies are available to the parties?

## **3.3. Evidence.**

## **3.3. Plaintiffs' Evidence.**

- 1. A copy of the last will of Mr. Kim Dong Yun marked as **"PEX 1".** - 2. A copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sillah Ltd marked **"PEX 2".** - 3. A copy of the written statement of defence marked **"PEX 3".** - 4. A copy of the letter dated 10th May, 2021 marked **"PEX 4".** - 5. A copy of the letter dated 4th August, 2021 marked as **"PEX 5".** - 6. A copy of the letter dated 16th August, 2021 marked as **"PEX 6".** - 7. Copies of the Board Resolution dated 10th October, 2012 marked as **"PEX 7".** - 8. A copy of the transfer form dated 7th May, 2012 marked as **"PEX 8".** - 9. A copy of the Board Resolution dated 28th September, 2016 marked as **"PEX 9".** - 10. A copy of High Court Civil Suit No. 1136 of 2021 at the Land Division marked as **"PEX 10".**


- 11. A copy of the Miscellaneous Application No. 2278 of 2021 (Arising from Civil Suit No. 1136 of 2021) marked as **"PEX 11".** - 12. A copy of the Miscellaneous Application No. 2279 of 2021 (Arising from MA No. 2278 of 2021 and Civil Suit No. 1136 of 2021) marked as **"PEX 12".** - 13. A copy of the changes made to Mr. Kim Dong Yun's last will marked as **"PEX 13".**

### **3.4. Defendant's Evidence.**

- 1. A copy of the last will of Mr. Kim Dong Yun marked **"PEX 1".** - 2. Probate dated 18th July, 2021 marked as **"DEX 1".** - 3. Petition for Probate dated 10th April, 2012 marked as **"DEX 2".** - 4. Land Sales Agreement dated 16th April, 2010 in respect of land comprised in Block 259 Plot 51 marked as **"DEX 3".** - 5. Consent Order in Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 marked as **"DEX 4".** - 6. Memorandum and Articles of Association for Sillah Limited dated 24th April, 2006 marked **"PEX 2".** - 7. Board Resolution of Sillah Limited dated 28th September, 2016 marked as "**PEX 9".** - 8. Schedule and proof of remittance of money by the Defendant to the 1st Plaintiff marked as **"DEX 5".** - 9. Registration Certificate and the Real Estate Lease Agreement marked as **"DEX 6 – DEX 9".** - 10. Land Sale Agreement dated 26th May, 2010 in respect of the land comprised in LRV 3399 Folio 15 Plot 46 Lugogo By-pass and email exchange showing receipt of proceeds of sale by the deceased marked as **"DEX 10 – DEX 12".** - 11. A Decree Absolute in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005 marked as **"DEX 13".**


12. Sillah Limited's financial statements for the years 2009 – 2021 marked as **"DEX 14".**

### **4.0. Hearing of the Suit**

4.1. On 6th September, 2023, this suit came up for hearing on formal proof. The 1st Plaintiff (PW1) adduced her evidence vide a witness statement filed in this Honorable Court on 27th April, 2022. She was cross-examined on her witness statement. The Defendant led evidence of two witnesses, himself (DW1) and Mr. Denis Kusaasira (DW2) they both adduced witness statements filed in this Honorable Court on 25th August and 27th October, 2022 respectively. They were cross-examined on their witness statements.

## **4.2. Burden of Proof**.

- 4.2.1. In all civil matters, he who alleges bears the burden to prove his/her case on a balance of probabilities. The Plaintiffs in this case by virtue of **Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap.8** have the burden to prove the facts alleged by then in the Plaint. - **4.2.2. Section 101 (1) of the Evidence Act,** *(Supra)* provides that; *"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of the facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist".*

## **4.3. Written Submissions.**

4.3.1. The Plaintiff filed written submissions on 16th May, 2024. The Defendant filed written submissions on 18th June, 2024. The Plaintiff further filed submissions in rejoinder on 5th July, 2024. I have perused and analyzed the written submissions submitted by all the parties in the resolution of this suit.


#### **4.4. Court's determination.**

4.4.1. I have deemed it appropriate to address the issues at hand in the following order so as to facilitate a coherent resolution of the matters at hand. Issue four will be handled first then issues one, three and five will be handled concurrently, then issues seven, two, six and lastly eight will follow in that order.

# **5.0. Issue Four: Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun made any changes to his will prior to his death?**

- 5.1. It is an agreed fact in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum that the deceased died testate on 7th June, 2011. In his last will and testament dated 8th March, 2010, he appointed the Defendant as an executor. - 5.1.1. According to paragraph 6 of the 1st Plaintiff's witness statement, on 17th April, 2011, the Late Kim Dong Yun made changes to his will dated 8th March, 2010 concerning property acquired after he had made his first will. The 1st Plaintiff exhibited the said will which was marked **"PEX 13"** along with its English translation. The said document purportedly made on 17th April, 2011, it was observed that even though it bears the purported signature of the deceased it was not witnessed. - 5.1.2. **Section 47 (1) (c) of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** requires that a will be attested by two or more witnesses. This requirement serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure that the testator's intentions are not only clearly expressed but also confirmed by impartial witnesses, making the will legally enforceable and aiding to prevent disputes regarding its authenticity. - 5.1.3. The changes to the will cannot be relied upon due to fact that the said Will **("PEX13")** was never witnessed, rendering it invalid.


- 5.1.4. In the premises, the deceased's will dated 8th March, 2010 remains the effective testamentary document of the deceased. This issue is therefore resolved in the negative. - **5.2. Issue One: Whether the Defendant disclosed all properties pertaining the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun in his petition for probate?** - **5.3. Issue Three: Whether the Late Kim Dong Yun disposed of some of his properties prior to his death?** - **5.4. Issue Five: Whether the Defendant has mismanaged the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun?**

I will address these three issues concurrently.

- 5.5. In the last will of the deceased dated 8th March, 2010, the deceased explicitly listed the following properties under his personal ownership; - 1. Eight (8) ordinary shares in Soon Production Ltd. He stated that his brother, the Defendant also owns two (2) shares in the said company while So Kwang Mo holds 10 shares purchased from Soon Yeon Hong (his ex-wife). - 2. Eighty (80) ordinary shares in Sillah Ltd. He stated that his brother, the Defendant also owns 20 ordinary shares in the said company. - 5.5.1. The deceased also outlined the property registered in the names of Sillah Limited: - 1. Land and property comprised in Plot 6 at Bunkabila. The deceased made it clear that although this property is registered in the name of Sillah Limited, it actually belongs to Mr. Sam Buchanan, who

 provided it to the company for purposes of securing a loan of USD 350,000 from Uganda Development Bank (UDB).

- 5.5.2. Additionally, the deceased mentioned a Decree from the High Court of Uganda in Divorce Cause No.15 of 2005, which allocated certain properties to him but was challenged by Soon Production Ltd. He stated that if Soon Production Ltd failed to set aside the distribution from the Decree, then the following properties would be deemed to be part of his estate: - i. Land and property in Kyadondo Block 249, Plot 51 at Bunga, measuring 0.90 acres. - ii. Land and property in LRV 3354, Folio 16 on Kyadondo Block 273, Plot 3072 at Katuso, measuring 0.042 hectares. - iii. Half of the property in LRV 3399, Folio 15, Plot 46 at Lugogo Bypass, measuring 0.420 hectares, which includes half of the undeveloped land and half of the building. - iv. A property acquired during his marriage to Soon Yeon Hong, located in LRV 3774, Folio 23, Plot 7 at Lourdel Road, measuring 0.316 hectares. The deceased stated that he discovered that this property was purchased during the subsistence of his marriage to Soon Yeon Hong using funds from Soon Production Ltd and was not disclosed during the divorce proceedings. The deceased stated that he had instructed his lawyer, Mr. Denis Kusaasira of Kusaasira & Co. Advocates, to pursue his share in this property, claiming that half of it should belong to his estate if successful. - v. Property located in ILLSAN, South Korea.


- 5.5.3. Upon reviewing the Decree Absolute in Divorce Cause No.15 of 2005 **("DEX13"),** endorsed on 14th November, 2008, it is evident that the deceased was awarded the following properties: - i. LRV 2841 Folio 21 Plot 46 Lugogo Bypass. The parties were to share ownership of this property equally, each taking and owning ½ of the property on a condominium set up and each one getting a certificate of title. - ii. LRV 3399, Folio 15, Kyadondo Block 249, Plot 51, Soya Close Bunga. - iii. Kyadondo Block 273, Plot 3072, LRV 3354, Folio 16, Katuuso, Buziga. - iv. Property in Illsan, South Korea. - v. The parties further agreed to wind up Soon Production Ltd so that each party proceeds to act independently of the other. - 5.5.4. The Defendant provided this Honorable Court with **"DEX 4,"** a Consent Order from Misc. Application 190 of 2008 (arising from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005); **Soon Production Ltd Vs. Soon Yeon Hong & Kim Dong Yun** endorsed by the court on 19th May, 2010. This consent order arose from an application filed by Soon Production Ltd challenging the distribution in the earlier Decree vide Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005. In the said Consent Order the parties agreed that; - i. The Judgment and Decree Absolute in Divorce Cause 15 of 2005 would bind the parties, including Soon Productions Limited. - ii. The property in LRV 3399, Folio 15, Plot 46 at Lugogo Bypass would be sold jointly, with proceeds distributed 60% to Kim Dong Yun and 40% to Soon Yeon Hong payable through their respective


advocates, Kusaasira & Co. Advocates and MMAKS Advocates respectively.

- iii. The property in LRV 3354, Folio 16, Katuuso in the names of GK Investment Ltd would be transferred to Sillah Ltd. - iv. Soon Production Ltd and Kim Dong Yun would have no interest in the property comprised in LRV 3132, Folio 2, Plot 8 Lugard Road and Plot 7 Lourdel Road, Kampala. - v. The property comprised in Kyadondo Block 259 Plot 51 would remain in the names of Soon Production Ltd and Kim Dong Yun was free to deal with it for his sole benefit as he deems fit. - 5.5.5. It is evident that when the deceased executed his will on 8th March, 2010, the Consent Order was not yet in effect, it was established later, on 19th May, 2010. In his Will, the deceased under the Sub title **"Company Properties and Liabilities"** under item 2, he stated there under that; *" At the time of making THIS MY LAST WILL, land and properties mentioned in property section above belong to SOON PRODUCTION LTD unless the court in the legal proceedings filed by the company decided otherwise".* - 5.5.6. Throughout the hearing, while the 1st Plaintiff argued that the Consent Order was not personally signed by the deceased despite being represented by his advocate. It is evident that the consent order was paid for and bears a court stamp acknowledging UGX. 9,000/- and a receipt number 4378070, it was also signed by the Court Registrar. No evidence was presented to show that the Consent Order had been set aside. Consequently, this Court finds that it remains binding - 5.5.7. To determine which properties constitute the deceased's estate, assess whether the Defendant disclosed all relevant properties in the Petition


for Probate, and evaluate any claims of mismanagement or fraudulent conduct, it is essential to read the deceased's will dated 8th March, 2010 in conjunction with the Decree from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005 and the Consent Order from Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 (arising from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005) which was endorsed by the Court on 19th May, 2010.

- 5.5.8. From the onset, it is crucial to acknowledge the legal principle that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity, distinct from its members, as established in the landmark case of **Salomon Vs. Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22**, wherein it was held that upon incorporation, a company becomes a legally different person from its subscribers. This principle was also reaffirmed in the case of **Macaura Vs. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd [1925] AC 619** wherein the House of Lords held that only the company, as a distinct legal entity, has an interest in property registered in its name, even if one individual holds all the shares of the company. - 5.5.9. Consequently, the properties that belonged to the deceased as an individual should be separated from the properties belonging to Sillah Ltd, Soon Production Ltd and/or any company in which the deceased had shares. I will therefore go through each of the properties mentioned in the will of deceased dated 8th March, 2010, in the decree absolute in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005 dated 14th November, 2008, in the Consent Order endorsed on 19th May, 2010 and in the various documents filed in this Court record to determine which property formed part of the deceased's estate and which property did not.

## *5.6. Eight (8) ordinary shares in Soon Production Ltd.*


- 5.6.1. According to the will dated 8th March, 2010, the deceased stated he owned eight (8) ordinary shares in Soon Production Ltd. The deceased willed that four (4) shares be transferred to Dong Hoon Kim (the Defendant) and four (4) shares to Huo Yan Fan (the 1st Plaintiff). - 5.6.2. In Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005, it was decreed that the parties would wound up Soon Production Ltd, allowing each party to operate independently. Subsequently, when Soon Production Ltd challenged the distribution in Miscellaneous Application No. 190 of 2008 (arising from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005), the parties reached a Consent in which it was stated;

*"1. That Soon Productions Limited and Kim Don Yun withdraw this review application that is Misc. Application No. 190 of 2018 with no order as to costs and the Judgment and Decree Absolute of His Lordship Justice Kasule in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005 is hereby agreed to as binding on all parties herein including Soon Productions Ltd…"*

- 5.6.3. The 1st Plaintiff contends that at the time of filing the petition for probate, Soon Production Ltd had not been wound up and those shares still formed part of the deceased's estate. The 1st Plaintiff, however, did not provide this Honorable Court with any evidence in support of this assertion yet the burden of proof lies on her. - 5.6.4. This Court therefore finds that the fate of Soon Production Ltd was clear in the Decree and Consent Order hereinabove stated. It was to be wound up, allowing each party to operate independently. - 5.6.5. I have also verified the registration status of Soon Production Ltd with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) and confirmed that it is struck off the register. Consequently, in the absence of any


evidence that Soon Production Ltd had not been wound up by the time the petition for probate was filed by the Defendant, I find that there is no claim to pursue regarding this company which is clearly now nonexistent.

### *5.7. Eighty (80) ordinary shares in Sillah Ltd.*

- 5.7.1. According to the deceased's will dated 8th March, 2010, the deceased owned 80 ordinary shares in Sillah Ltd. The will stipulated that 40 shares were to be transferred to Mr. Dong Hoon Kim (the Defendant) and 40 shares to Huo Yan Fang (the 1st Plaintiff). - 5.7.2. These shares were disclosed under paragraph 4 (i) of **"DEX 2"** which is the Petition for Letters of Probate filed on 16th April, 2012 by the Defendant. None of the parties to this suit dispute that these shares formed part of the estate of the deceased. Therefore, this Court finds that these shares formed part of the deceased estate.

## *5.8. Property in Illsan, South Korea.*

- 5.8.1. According to the deceased's will, he left property at Illsan in South Korea. This property was not included in the Petition for Letters of Probate filed by the Defendant on 16th April, 2012. - 5.8.2. The Defendant asserts that this property was omitted because it lies outside the jurisdiction of Ugandan courts. - 5.8.3. Indeed, this Court finds that jurisdiction is determined by statute, and Ugandan courts only have authority over properties located within Uganda. Legal proceedings concerning properties situated outside Uganda should be addressed in the courts of the jurisdiction where the property is located. No submissions were made by the Plaintiffs as to


whether South Korea has the equivalent of the Probate (Resealing) Act of Uganda or any hope for having the Letters of Probate resealed.

5.8.3. This Court therefore finds that the Defendant has provided sufficient justification for not including the property in Illsan, South Korea, in the Petition for Letters of Probate filed on 16th April, 2012 as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Defendant had the option of seeking separate letters of probate in South Korea concerning the property in Illsan, South Korea.

#### *5.9. Land and property comprised in Plot 6 at Bunkabila.*

- 5.9.1. The deceased made it clear in his will dated 8th March, 2010 that although this property is registered in the name of Sillah Ltd, it actually belongs to Mr. Sam Buchanan, who provided it to the company to secure a loan of USD 350,000 from Uganda Development Bank (UDB). - 5.9.2. Considering the aforementioned disclosure, it is evident that this property is not part of the deceased's estate. Additionally, the property is also registered under the name of Sillah Ltd which is separate and distinct from its members.

## *6.0. LRV 3774, Folio 23, Plot 7 at Lourdel Road, measuring 0.316 hectares and LRV 3132, Folio 2, Plot 8 Lugard Road.*

6.1.1. The deceased stated in his will that he discovered that this property was acquired during his marriage to Soon Yeon Hong and was purchased using funds from Soon Production Ltd but that it had not been disclosed during the divorce proceedings. He instructed his lawyer, Mr. Denis Kusaasira, to pursue his claim for half of this property asserting that it should belong to his estate if successful.


Whereas the property comprised in LRV 3132, Folio 2, Plot 8 Lugard Road, Nakasero was wrongly registered in the names of Soon Yeon Hong, again instructions were left with Mr. Denis Kusaasira of Kusaasira & Co, Advocates to recover the land and property.

- 6.1.2. However, it should be noted that in the Consent Order vide Misc. Application 190 of 2008 (arising from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005); Soon Production Ltd Vs. Soon Yeon Hong & Kim Dong Yun endorsed by the court on 19th May, 2010, under clause 8 it was agreed by the parties that; *" Soon Productions Ltd and Kim Dong Yun hereby agree that they do not have any interest whatsoever in the properties comprised in LRV 3132, Folio 2, Plot 8 Lugard Road and Plot 7 Lourdel Road, Kampala".* - 6.1.3. In the absence of any proof that this Consent Order was set aside, this court finds that these properties did not form part of the deceased's estate and therefore could not be included as the deceased properties at the time of filing for Letters of Probate.

# *6.2. Half of the property comprised in LRV 3399, Folio 15, Plot 46 at Lugogo Bypass, measuring 0.420 hectares.*

6.2.1. The deceased stated in his will dated 8th March, 2010 that in the Decree made in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005, (*Item 3 (c) of the Will*) half of this property was among the properties accorded to him as his share of the matrimonial property.

Indeed, in the Decree in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005, the parties were to share ownership of this property equally with each taking and owning ½ of the property on a condominium set up and each one getting a Certificate of Title.


I have however observed the said property was described as LRV 2841 Folio 21 Plot 46 Lugogo Bypass in the Decree and in the will it was described as LRV 3399, Folio 15, Plot 46 at Lugogo Bypass, measuring 0.420 hectares. In the absence of any evidence to contrary that these are two different properties, I take it that the property in issue is the same that is Plot 46 Lugogo Bypass.

In the Consent Order dated 19th May, 2010, the parties agreed that this property would be jointly sold by the parties to Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 that is Soon Production Ltd, Soon Yeon Hon and Kim Dong Yun at a price to be agreed by the said parties and the sale agreement and transfer deed would be signed under the seal of Soon Production Ltd to be witnessed by the parties. It was further agreed that the proceeds of sale would be shared as follows; Kim Dong Yun would be paid by the vendor through his advocates, Kusaasira & Co. Advocates 60% of the sale proceeds and Soon Yeon Hon would be paid through her advocates MMAKS Advocates 40% of the sale proceeds.

6.2.2. The Defendant contended under paragraph 7 of his witness statement that this property was disposed of before the deceased's death. That this was upon the instructions of the deceased and the proceeds of the sale were remitted to the deceased.

The Defendant provided this Honorable Court with the Sale Agreement for this property dated 26th May, 2010 between Soon Production Ltd (Vendor), Verma Co. Ltd (Purchaser) and Sebalu & Lule Advocates (Escrow Agent) **("DEX9")**. According to the paragraph 3 of the sale agreement, the property was sold at USD 2,000,000 which was paid to the escrow agent upon signing of the agreement who agreed that on the completion date upon fulfilment of all the terms and conditions of

 the agreement, the escrow agent would remit the purchase price to the vendors of which 60% of the sale proceeds amounting to USD 1,200,000 would be remitted Kusaasira and Co. Advocates for and on behalf of Kim Dong Yun and 40% of the sale proceeds amounting to USD 800,000 would be remitted to MMAKS Advocates for and on behalf of Soon Yeon Hong.

Under clause 7.2 of the sale agreement, Soon Yeon Hong and Kim Dong Yun also agreed to sign letters/instruments withdrawing the caveats they had lodged under instrument numbers 358097 and 414259 respectively on the said certificate of title.

I also observed that under clause 1.1 of the sale agreement, the completion date which is the date when all prerequisites, conditional or incidental to the purchase and sale had to be concluded was set on or before 1st June, 2010. Important to note is that Kim Dong Yun passed away on 7th June, 2011 which was one year and six days from the date of completion of the prerequisites in the said sale agreement.

- 6.2.3. A review of the signature page of the sale agreement reveals that it was signed by Soon Yeon Hong and Dong Hoon Kim in their capacities as directors of Soon Production Ltd, with the transaction being witnessed by Kusaasira Denis, who served as the Company Secretary. - 6.2.4. The Defendant provided this Honorable Court with an outward payment customer advise document stamped by Standard Chartered Bank on 4th June, 2010. It shows that a sum of USD 1,197,478.45 was transferred from the account of Sebalu & Lule Advocates to the account of Kusaasira & Co. Advocates held in Bank of Africa.


- 6.2.5. This Court was also provided with the email exchanges between DW2 and the deceased marked as "DEX 10, 11 and 12". In the email dated 18th May, 2010, the deceased is seen to be according DW2 his bank account number in Woori Bank South Korea. 6.2.6. Further in an email dated 4th June, 2010 which is the same date the money was transferred to DW2 from Sebalu & Lule Advocates, the deceased emails DW2 informing him not to forget to send support documents to him by mail because he had to declare to the Korean Revenue that some money must go back for investment into Uganda. The deceased also informed DW2 that he would inform him once he sees the Telegraphic Transfer to his Korean Account. A telegraphic transfer is an electronic way of transferring funds that is used primarily for overseas wire transactions. - 6.2.7. Further in **"DEX12" ,** the deceased in an email dated 9th June, 2010 further informs DW2 that he got the money and he is preparing some procedures on how to send back some money for expanding the business in Uganda. - 6.2.8. From the foregoing, this court is convinced that this property was sold by the deceased prior to his death and therefore does not form part of his estate.

## *6.3. Land and property in Kyadondo Block 249, Plot 51 at Bunga, measuring 0.90 acres.*

6.3.1. This property is also referenced in the deceased's will dated 8th March, 2010. The will indicates that this property was awarded to the deceased as his share of the matrimonial property in the Decree in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005. However, this Decree was contested by


Soon Production Ltd in Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005).

- 6.3.2. While the Decree in Divorce Cause No.15 of 2005 confirmed the deceased's entitlement to the property, the subsequent Consent Order in Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 stipulated that the property would remain under the ownership of Soon Production Ltd. This order further allowed Mr. Kim Dong Yun the freedom to use the property for his sole benefit or as he deemed fit. It is noteworthy that the Consent Order referred to the property as Kyadondo Block 259, Plot 51, while the will identifies it as Block 249, Plot 51. The Defendant has characterized this discrepancy as an anomaly in his written submissions, which this court has taken note of. Here is what to take note of, under the Will *paragraph 3(a) Land and property comprised in Kyadondo Block 249 Plot 51 at Bunga …. and Consent Order Paragraph 6. Property comprised in Kyadondo Block 259 Plot 51 shall remain in the names of the Applicant/Soon Productions Limited and Mr. Kim Dong Yun is free to deal with the said property for his sole benefit or as he deems fit.* - 6.3.3. The Defendant asserts in paragraph 11 (a) of his written statement of defense that this property was also disposed of by the deceased prior to his death and the proceeds utilized by the deceased as he wished. DW2, the deceased's personal lawyer, corroborated this statement.

In support of this claim, the Defendant submitted **"DEX 3",** which is a sale agreement dated 16th April, 2010 between Soon Production Ltd and Haba Group (U) Ltd.

6.3.4. According to clause 1 of the sale agreement **("DEX3"),** the land was sold for a total consideration of USD 600,000. Of this amount, USD 100,000 was paid upon execution of the agreement, with an additional


USD 100,000 due within 30 days (by 16th May, 2010). The remaining USD 400,000 was contingent upon Haba Group (U) Ltd transferring land registered as LRV 3953 Folio 1, Plot 9 at Bat Valley to Soon Production Ltd or its nominee.

Clause 1 (b) of the sale agreement further stipulated that upon receipt of the initial USD 100,000 installment, Soon Production Ltd would hand over the title to the purchaser's advocate, Niwagaba, Mwebesa & Co. Advocates, to hold the same until the purchaser fulfilled the agreed conditions. A review of the signature page of the sale agreement indicates that the Defendant signed as a representative of Soon Production Ltd and DW2 signed as the advocate.

The Defendant contended that since the land was registered in the name of Soon Production Ltd, the deceased's signature was unnecessary on the agreement, as the Defendant signed as a Director of the company.

6.3.5. This court acknowledges that the deceased declared in his last will dated 8th March, 2010 that he held eight ordinary shares in Soon Production Ltd and the Defendant also held two ordinary shares in Soon Production Ltd.

Neither party has submitted on the status of the property at LRV 3953 Folio 1, Plot 9 at Bat Valley Crescent, mentioned in the sale agreement as exhibit "DE3". Therefore, the status regarding this property will not be further addressed.

This court, however, reemphasizes the principle of separate legal personality for incorporated companies concerning this property,


which the deceased agreed would remain in the name of Soon Production Ltd.

- 6.3.6. Furthermore, this court takes note that under **Sections 50 (1) and (2) (b) of the Companies Act, Cap. 106,** the board of directors have the authority to bind the company or authorize others to do so in good faith, and a person is presumed to have acted in good faith unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon the Plaintiffs to prove otherwise. - 9.2.51 **Section 51 of the Companies Act (supra)** clarifies that a party transacting with a company is not required to inquire whether such action is permitted by the company's memorandum or any limitations on the powers of the board. - 6.3.7. This court also recognizes the importance of the right to a fair hearing. A person cannot be adversely affected by a decision if they were not a party to the proceedings. They have the right to be heard in legal matters that may affect their rights or interests underscoring the principle that no one should face legal consequences without having the opportunity to present their case. - 9.2.53 In the case at hand, Haba Group (U) Ltd is not party to this suit and therefore this Court must be mindful of making any decision that may otherwise affect its interests in the said property. - 6.3.8 That, notwithstanding, based on the evidence presented and the legal principles established, this court finds that the deceased having agreed that the property remains in the name of Soon Production Ltd, the principle of separate legal personality applies and therefore this property does not form part of the deceased's personal estate.


# *6.4. Land and property comprised in LRV 3354, Folio 16 on Kyadondo Block 273, Plot 3072 at Katuso, measuring 0.042 hectares.*

- 6.4.1. This property is referenced in the deceased's will dated 8th March 2010, which indicates that it was awarded to him as his share of the matrimonial property in the Decree from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005. However, this Decree was contested by Soon Production Ltd in Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 (arising from Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005). - 6.4.2. While the Decree in Divorce Cause No. 15 of 2005 confirmed the deceased's entitlement to the property, the subsequent Consent Order in Misc. Application No. 190 of 2008 stipulated that the property, registered in the name of GK Investments Ltd, would be transferred to Sillah Limited. - 6.4.3. The Defendant argued that the inclusion of this property in the Petition was erroneous. In paragraph 5 of his witness statement, DW1 further explained that the property was owned by GK Investments Ltd under a leasehold tenure granted by Buganda Land Board and that GK Investments Ltd belonged to the deceased's ex-wife. Although the property was intended to be transferred to Sillah Ltd., the deceased's ex-wife became uncooperative, refusing to pay the outstanding ground rent and consent fee required for the lessor to approve the transfer. - 6.4.3. The Defendant stated that upon recognizing that the lease was nearing expiration, the property was sold for UGX 60,000,000/- to a buyer willing to take it on an "as is" basis. That the proceeds from this sale were part of the funds sent to the 1st Plaintiff while she was in Korea for her maintenance and that of the 2nd Plaintiff.


- 6.4.3. The Defendant did not however provide this Honorable Court with a copy of the sale agreement for this property. This Court expected the Plaintiff to have interrogated this further and conducted a search with Buganda Land Board and Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development to determine who purchased this property, at what price, and under what circumstances but this was not done yet it's the Plaintiff's case against the Defendant. - 6.4.4. It is one word against the other, the Plaintiff failed to carry out due diligence on the property and the defendant asserts that the property was disposed of. I find that this property is nonexistent and even if it were, it was supposed to be in the names of Sillah Limited whose shareholding is known. Yet it is not in its asset register.

## *6.5. Property comprised in LRV 4177, Folio 9, Block 5, Plot 288 at Mulago.*

- 6.5.1. The Plaintiff contended that between 2014 and 2016, the residential houses left behind by her late husband in Pazu City and Incheng City, South Korea were auctioned and sold due to debts. The Defendant allegedly refused to save these properties from sale, despite having the means and resources to do so. This situation left her and the 2nd Plaintiff homeless, forcing them to return to Uganda to live in a rented house in the suburbs of Kampala. - 6.5.2. The Plaintiff further contends that due to her old age and in an effort to reduce the increasing rent costs, she requested one of the Directors of Sillah Ltd, one Mwaka Mike, to allow her to stay in one of the company's residential premises and to use a company vehicle to facilitate the 2nd Plaintiff's transport to and from school. However, her request was interpreted as a threat, leading the company to file Civil


Suit No. 1136 of 2021 at the Land Division of the High Court on 30th November, 2021, along with Misc. Applications No. 2278 and 2279 of 2021 for an interim order and a temporary injunction to restrain the 1st Plaintiff from entering the property at Mulago respectively.

- 6.5.3. Notably, this property was not mentioned in the deceased's will dated 8th March 2010. The court has previously ruled that the purported will dated 17th April 2011, in which this property was referenced did not constitute a valid will. - 6.5.4. This Honorable Court reviewed a search report dated 14th February, 2024 which confirmed that this property was registered in the name of Sillah Ltd on 10th December, 2010 while the deceased was still alive. The Plaintiff in her witness statement also acknowledges that this property belongs to Sillah Ltd in which her husband held shares. - 6.5.5. In light of the above, this court finds that this property was not the individual property of the deceased but rather company property belonging to Sillah Limited and therefore only forms part of the estate to the extent of the deceased's shareholding in the company.

#### *6.6. Property in Pazu City and Incheng City, South Korea.*

- 6.6.1. The 1st Plaintiff attributes the failure to prevent the auction and sale of the aforementioned properties to the Defendant's inability to settle the outstanding debts, despite having the means to do so. - 6.6.2. This court, however, notes that these properties were not included in the deceased's will dated 8th March, 2010 in which the Defendant was appointment as executor and the basis upon which the Defendant was issued with Letters of Probate.


- 6.6.3. Additionally, the 1st Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that she notified the Defendant about the impending auction of these properties. As a result, the court concludes that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the mismanagement of this property. - 6.6.4. In light of all the above resolutions in respect of each property, this court finds that the only property forming part of the estate of the deceased in Uganda, which needed to be disclosed by the Defendant in the Petition for Probate is the 80% ordinary shares the deceased held in Sillah Limited. Accordingly, therefore, issues two and three are determined in the affirmative and issue five is determined in the negative.

#### **7.0. Issue Seven:** *Whether the executor of the will carried out his duties and whether there is reasonable cause for not?*

- 7.1. The Defendant contends that he fulfilled his duties as executor of the deceased's will, with the exception of delayed filing the account and inventory. He claims these delays were not willful, attributing them to the legal advice he received suggesting that he holds off on filing the same until resolving the dispute regarding PW1's allegations of entitlement to half of the shares in Sillah Ltd rather than the 40 shares bequeathed to her, and whether the contested will dated 17th April, 2011 should be upheld. - 7.1.1. The essential duties of an executor include identifying and collecting all assets of the estate, filing an inventory within six months of the grant of probate, settling all just debts and liabilities before distributing the estate, distributing the estate according to the will, and maintaining accurate records of all transactions. Furthermore, the

 executor must file a detailed account to the court regarding the management of the estate within one year from the grant.

7.1.2. A grant of Letters of Probate or Administration is a court order as a result of grantees committing and undertaking to execute the estate and file a full and true inventory of the properties and credits and exhibit the same in court within six (6) months from the date of the grant, and to render a true account of the property and credits within one (1) year or such other time as court shall appoint.

#### 7.1.3. **Section 273(1) of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** 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 the 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 to which they have been applied or disposed of."*

7.1.4. The Defendant was granted the Letters of Probate for the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun on 18th July, 2012 vide Probate No. 323 of 2012, with the obligation to file an inventory and account within the stipulated timelines.


- 7.1.5. An inventory is essentially a list of all the assets and liabilities of the estate that the executor has identified post-grant. Conversely, an account is a detailed report outlining how the executor has managed the estate's assets and liabilities over time, including the distribution among the beneficiaries. - 7.1.6. The Defendant was required to file the inventory by 18th January, 2013 and an account by 18th July, 2013. This civil suit was filed on 5th February, 2018 which is a staggering five years and six months after the grant of Letters of Probate. Such a delay is truly unacceptable. - 7.1.7. I am not convinced by the Defendant's arguments for failure to file the inventory and account. The Defendant should not have waited for over five years for the Plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings against him for not performing his duties. Moreover, the will explicitly stated how the 80 ordinary shares in Sillah Ltd were to be divided; 40 shares to Dong Hoon Kim (the Defendant) and 40 shares to Huo Yan Fang (the 1st Plaintiff). There was nothing complex about filing an inventory and account detailing this. - 7.1.8. The Defendant could have easily transmitted the bequeathed 40 shares to himself and 40 shares to the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff chooses not to retain her 40 shares, she has the option to relinquish them. The process was straightforward, provide her with her 40 shares as per the will and allow her the autonomy to decide their fate, whether to keep, sell, or relinquish them. - 7.1.9. I therefore determine this issue in the negative, the Defendant having failed to file an inventory and account of the estate within the stipulated legal timeframes.


## **7.2. Issue Two: Whether the Defendant is liable for fraudulent management of the estate of the Late Kim Don Yun?**

- 7.2.1. The Plaintiff raised the following particulars of fraud as against the Defendant in her Plaint. - i) Disclosing in the application for probate that the deceased sold off the property mentioned in his will before his demise whereas not.

*(This has already been determined in issue 3 above).*

ii) Failure to disclose that the Late Kim Dong Yun acquired property after making the will dated 8th March, 2010.

*(This has also been determined in issue 1 above).*

- iii) Failure to make a full inventory and account for the estate to court*. (This has also been determined in issue 7 above).* - iv) Failure to distribute the estate of the deceased to the beneficiaries of the Late Kim Dong Yun.

*(This has also been determined in issue 7 above).*

v) Failure to transfer 40 shares in Sillah Ltd to the Plaintiff as per the last will of the Late Kim Dong Yun.

*(This has also been determined in issue 7 above).*

- vi) Applying for letters of probate without involving the beneficiaries to the estate. *(This issue remains to be addressed.)* - 7.2.2. The Defendant argues that the mere absence of beneficiaries in the Probate application process does not inherently constitute fraud. He argues that he included all the beneficiaries in the Petition, clearly outlining their relationships to the deceased, and asserts that there was no attempt to conceal any information.


- 7.2.3. Furthermore, the Defendant maintains that, as the appointed executor of the deceased's will, he was under no legal obligation to involve the beneficiaries or seek their consent prior to applying for Letters of Probate. That if such involvement or consent had been a requirement, the court would have mandated that the Defendant produce the beneficiaries or their consents during the identification process before granting the Letters of Probate. - 7.2.4. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that had she been involved in the Probate application process, the Defendant would have uncovered the existence of two wills, both of which needed to be addressed. This court has already determined in issue four above that the will dated 17th April, 2011 is invalid. - 7.2.5. It is important to recognize that all petitioners for Letters of Probate typically undergo an identification process at court. If the court had indeed required the Defendant to present the beneficiaries listed in the Petition, this would have occurred before issuing the Letters of Probate. - 7.2.6. Also, the fact that petitions for Letters of Probate are ideally advertised in a newspaper of wide circulation prior to proceeding for identification and ultimately obtaining a grant of Probate, it is taken that the general public including the Plaintiffs were put on notice about the petition for Letters of Probate filed by the Defendant and had a right to caveat the same. The requirement for grant of Letters of Probate is not identification of beneficiaries but executors and witnesses to the will among others. - 7.2.7. Moreover, I have already established hereinabove that the relevant property which is the 80 shares held by the deceased in Sillah Limited was disclosed in the Petition for Letters of Probate.


7.2.8. This court therefore concludes that no harm resulted to the beneficiaries from their lack of involvement in the Probate application process. Consequently, this issue is resolved in the negative.

# **7.3. Issue Six: Whether in view of what the 1st Plaintiff has so far received from the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun, the Plaintiff is still entitled to 40 shares in Sillah Ltd?**

- 7.3.1. An executor is defined under **Section 2 of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** to mean a person appointed in the last Will of a deceased person to execute the terms of the will. - 7.3.2. In the case of **Romano Salim and 5 others Vs. Saidan Atala HCCS No. 20 of 2005,** the Court defined a beneficiary as a person who is entitled to a share in the properties of a deceased person in accordance to the laws of Succession in Uganda. - 7.3.3. A named beneficiary in a will has ascertainable interest in the estate to the extent of the inheritable assets bequeathed. A testator's estate should therefore be strictly administered according to the intentions of the deceased stipulated in the Will. - 7.3.4. **In William on Wills, 7th Edition at page 513** it is stated as follows;

*"The first and great rule to which all others must bend is that effect must be given to the intention of the testator, but the intention herein in question is not the intent in the mind of the testator at the time he made his will but that declared and apparent in his Will".*

7.3.5. The deceased in his will dated 8th March, 2010 stated that of his 80 ordinary shares in Sillah Ltd, 40 shares should be transferred to the Defendant and 40 shares to the 1st Plaintiff.


- 7.3.6. The Defendant contends that prior to the deceased's death, the deceased informed him that he had left PW1 with approximately USD 200,000 for the education of the 2nd Plaintiff which the 1st Plaintiff denied ever receiving. As such, the Defendant sent PW1 money for her maintenance and for the welfare of the 2nd Defendant. That to date the Defendant continues to pay for the 2nd Plaintiff's education. He requested court to prioritize the 2nd Plaintiff's financial security and educational needs over any additional claims by PW1 and safeguard the 40 shares for the 2nd Plaintiff's future. - 7.3.7. This Court finds that the deceased's wishes in his will dated 8th March, 2010 must be respected. If the deceased had wished that these shares be accorded to the 2nd Plaintiff, he would have willed so. I find that the 40 shares belong to the 1st Plaintiff and ought to be transferred to her. This issue is therefore determined in the affirmative.

#### **7.4. Issue Eight: What remedies are available to the parties?**

- 7.4.1. The Plaintiffs sought the remedies listed in 1.1 above. I will not reproduce them again. - 7.4.2. This Court is cognizant of **Section 230 (1) and (2) (e) of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** which provides that the grant of probate may be revoked for just cause of which just cause includes that the person willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with Part XXXIV of the Act. - 7.4.3. The Defendant in this case was found to have willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory and account within six months and one year respectively from the date of the grant. This court therefore finds that there is just cause for revoking the Letters of


Probate issued to the Defendant by this Honorable Court on 18th July, 2012.

- 7.4.4. I take note of the necessity to have the Letters of Probate revoked but the consequences of this revocation will not be the best remedy for the Plaintiffs as prayed. The 1st Plaintiff needs her 40 shares of Sillah Limited transmitted and once the Letters of Probate are revoked then the process of obtaining Letters of Administration might not be enough for the beneficiaries including the Plaintiffs to have obtained the Letters of Administration before their expiry date, that being the case and in the interest of justice, the Letters of Probate shall remain in force. - 7.4.5. Whereas the Defendant was found not to have acted fraudulently in managing the estate of the deceased, it has been determined that the Defendant failed to execute the deceased's will by not transmitting the 40 shares bequeathed to the 1st Plaintiff as outlined in the last will and testament of the deceased dated 8th March, 2010 for over five years. This failure is especially unacceptable, given that the executor was entrusted in the deceased's will and by Court to carry out its terms. - 7.4.6. The Defendant was however found not to have been fraudulent in managing the estate of deceased but was found not to have executed the will of deceased by not transmitting the 40 shares bequeathed to the 1st Plaintiff by the deceased. - 7.4.7. The Plaintiffs made no submissions to justify the award for general damages. General damages are also awarded at the discretion of the Court. This court will therefore not award general damages as they have not been justified. - 7.4.8. With regard to costs of the suit, this court takes cognizance that costs follow the event. If the Defendant had transmitted to the 1st Plaintiff


the 40 shares bequeathed to her in the deceased will dated 8th April, 2010 and filed an inventory and account of the estate within the stipulated legal timeframes, the Plaintiffs would have no case against him. In the premises, the Plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit.

### **8.0. Conclusion:**

- 8.1. In the final result, the Court orders as follows; - 1. The Letters of Probate granted to Dong Hoon Kim on 18th July, 2012 in respect of the estate of the Late Kim Dong Yun vide Probate No. 323 of 2012 shall remain in force until 10th April, 2025 for further court determination. - 2. The Defendant should provide this Honorable Court with an account of the management of the estate of the deceased within one month from the date of this Judgment. - 3. This court declares that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to 40 shares in Sillah Limited as per the deceased's last will and testament dated 8th March, 2010 which shall be transmitted to the 1st Plaintiff by Defendant within two (2) months from date of this Judgement. - 4. A permanent injunction is hereby issued against the Defendant restraining him from any further dealing and/or undertaking any dealings with the 40 shares bequeathed to the 1st Plaintiff in Sillah Limited. - 5. Costs of the Suit are awarded to the Plaintiffs. *It is so Ordered.*

## *Dated, signed and delivered electronically this 5th day of November, 2024.*