Katende & 3 Others v Katende (Civil Suit 160 of 2021) [2024] UGHCFD 39 (30 July 2024)

#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [FAMILY DIVISION]**

#### **CIVIL SUIT NO. 160 OF 2021**

# **(ARISING OUT OF ADMINISTRATION CAUSE NO. 2323 OF 2016) 1. JOEL KATENDE 2. NANKINGA AGNES**

#### **3. NAMPINGA TEOPISTA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS**

#### **4. NAKIBOMBO TEOPISTA**

#### **VERSUS**

**GERALD KATENDE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT** (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Pio Katende)

#### **JUDGEMENT BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CELIA NAGAWA**

#### **1.0 Introduction.**

- 1.1 The Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendant who is the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Pio Katende seeking the following orders; - a) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a beneficial share in the Estate of the Late Pio Katende as children of the Late Daudi Katende who was a son of Pio Katende. - b) A declaration that the Defendant fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration to the Estate of the Late Pio Katende. - c) An order compelling the Defendant to apportion the Plaintiffs their beneficial share from the estate of the Late Pio Katende in respect of their late father Daudi Katende. - d) A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the Defendant and stopping his agents, servants, employees, and/or anyone claiming for and on his behalf from selling and/or transferring,


trespassing, surveying and/or mutating and/or interfering with the suit land pending determination of the suit.

- e) Aggravated Damages - f) General Damages. - g) Mesne Profits. - h) Interest on (e), (f), and (g) above from the date of filing this suit until payment in full. - i) Costs of the suit. - j) Any other reliefs that this honourable court may deem fit. - 1.2 The Defendant was served and he filed a Written Statement of Defence on 5th June, 2021 in defence of this suit. - 1.3 The Plaintiffs were represented by Counsel George Muhangi of M/S MBS Advocates, Plot 26, Wampewo Avenue, Bakwanye House, Kampala while the Defendant was represented by Counsel Semakula Charles Muganwa of M/S Muganwa, Nanteza & Company Advocates, Plot 1-3, Coral Crescent, Lower Kololo, Kampala. - 2.0 **Background of this suit.** - 2.1 The Late Pio Katende died on 25th August, 2013. The Plaintiffs' father, the Late Daudi Mukiibi was a son of the Late Pio Katende. The Late Daudi Mukiibi predeceased his father. - 2.2 The Late Pio Katende left a Will without mentioning an Executor(s) of his Will resulting into an application for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed. Before the petition for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, the family appeared before the Administrator General and obtained a Certificate of No Objection having appointed the Defendant as a fit and proper person to administer the Estate. - 2.3 The deceased, Pio Katende fathered seven (7) children including Daudi Katende. The Plaintiffs were raised by their grandfather Pio


Katende under the care of their aunts and uncles including the Defendant herein.

- 2.4 According to the Petition for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, the petitioner now the Defendant, stated that at the time of Pio Katende's death, the deceased was a widower and was survived by five (5) biological children including Judith Katende then aged 65 years, Nalongo Gladys then aged 75 years, Nampiima Annet then aged 74 years, Peggy Namakula then aged 57 years and himself. He further mentioned that the deceased had lost 2 children who had predeceased him namely Nakibombo Teopista who died at the age of 32 years and Katiisa Joel who died at the age of 28 years. - 2.5 The Defendant did not include the Plaintiffs who are grandchildren of the deceased. The Defendant included the 1st and 4th Plaintiffs as deceased children of Pio Katende who had purportedly died before the demise of Pio Katende among other misrepresentations. - 2.6 The Defendant applied for and was granted Letters of Administration with a Will annexed on 15th September, 2017. - 2.7 Two properties were declared as the deceased's only properties namely; the land at Singo and 4 acres at Komamboga comprising the family home and the burial grounds. - 2.8 The Plaintiffs state that the defendant mutated and sub divided the land formerly comprised in Block 196 Plot 70 land at Komamboga into various plots and distributed it to the beneficiaries without giving them a share of their father. Several engagements regarding the distribution of the deceased's estate occurred between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant but all turned futile without any fruit to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs demand their father's share. - 2.9 The Respondent averred that the Plaintiffs do not have an automatic right to the estate of the Late Pio Katende who died testate.


#### **3.0 Evidence of the Parties.**

#### **3.1 Plaintiffs' Evidence**

- 3.1.1. The Plaintiffs presented before this court the following; - 1. The Death Certificate of the deceased, Pio Katende marked "**PEX1**". - 2. Certificates of Title to the suit property marked "**PEX2**". - 3. An area schedule form marked "**PEX3**". - 4. Correspondences from the Local Council Authorities to Gerald Katende marked "**PEX4**". - 5. Minutes of the meeting with the Administrator General marked "**PEX5**". - 6. The Petition for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed marked "**PEX6**". - 7. Minutes of the family meeting marked **"PEX7".** - 8. Correspondences between the Plaintiffs' lawyers and the Defendant's lawyers marked "**PEX8**".

## **3.2 Defendant's Evidence.**

The Defendant's presented before this court the following;

- 1. A copy of the Will of the deceased, Pio Katende marked "**DIP1**". - 2. The translated Will of the late Pio Katende marked "**DEX1**". - 3. An Inventory of the deceased's estate marked "**DEX2**". - 4. Letters of Administration with a Will annexed marked "**DEX3**". - 5. Affidavits dated 23rd September, 2021 and 5th April, 2022 marked "**DEX4**" and "**DEX5**" respectively. - 6. A letter dated 25th November, 2015 marked "**DEX6**".

# **4.0. Issues for determination before this Court.**

i) Whether the estate of the late Daudi Katende has a beneficial interest in the estate of the late Pio Katende?


- ii) Whether the Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the estate of the late Pio Katende? - iii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a beneficial share in the estate of the late Pio Katende? - iv) Whether the Defendant fraudulently obtained Letters of administration with a Will annexed for the estate of the Pio Katende? - v) What other remedies are available to the parties?

### 4.0 **Burden of Proof**

- 4.1 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 them in this suit. **Section 101 (1) of the Evidence Act** 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".* - 4.2 **Section 101 (2)** further provides that; *"When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person".*

#### **5.0 Submissions**

**5.1** I perused and analysed the parties' written submissions. I appreciate counsel's submissions and arguments in their endeavour to have this suit resolved in favour of their clients. Further, I evaluated and examined all presented evidence, as required by law including the pleadings and all have been considered in determination of this suit.


#### **6.0 Determination of the Issues.**

**Issues 1 and 2 are resolved concurrently: Whether the estate of the Late Daudi Katende has a beneficial interest in the estate of the Late Pio Katende and Whether the Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the estate of the Late Pio Katende?**

- **6.1.1** The deceased, Pio Katende died testate leaving behind a Will dated 13th April, 2010. In the said Will, the deceased named Gerald Kaleebi, Daudi Mukiibi (deceased) as his sons and Giradesi Nalweyiso, Annet Nampinga, Christine Nabbuto, Judith Babirima, and Budesiyano Tekabwokya as his daughters. - **6.1.2** The deceased, Pio Katende died testate leaving behind a Will dated 13th April, 2010. In the said Will, the deceased named Gerald Kaleebi, Daudi Mukiibi (deceased) as his sons and Giradesi Nalweyiso, Annet Nampinga, Christine Nabbuto, Judith Babirima, and Budesiyano Tekabwokya as his daughters. - **6.1.3** In the Will, the deceased named his properties which were four (4) acres of land at Komamboga, Kyadondo (without Block and Plot details) where his house and burial grounds were located/situated and 17.5 acres of land at Kasejere in Singo (without Block and Plot details). He then bequeathed the 17.5 acres of land to the Defendant, Gerald Katende and stated that the 4 acres at Komamboga comprising his home and household properties shall not be given out. *"I have left that land with the house thereon undistributed. However, they will be in charge of all my daughters because it has graves of their grandfathers and they (daughters) together with Nalongo Nalweyiso will have the discretion to determine any issues respecting the home/land and to look after the widow (my wife)".*


- **6.1.4** The Plaintiffs submitted that they are entitled to their father's share in their grandfather's estate. They contend that their deceased father was entitled to a share in the estate of the deceased and they are entitled to what would have been his share. - **6.1.5** The Law of Succession provides that, "*A Will establishes the wishes of the testator at the time of his death* and the court is not inclined to interfere with the testator's wishes, unless in circumstances where equity and justice requires." **Mallinga versus Obukunyang (HCCS No. 013 of 2013)** as held by *Hon. Justice Henry I. Kawesa.* - **6.1.6** A Will is a "testamentary document, voluntarily made, executed and witnessed according to law by a testator with a sound disposing mind wherein he disposes of his property subject to any limitation imposed by law and wherein he gives such other directives as he may deem fit to his personal representatives otherwise known as his executors, who administer his estate in accordance with the wishes manifested in the Will." **K Abayomi, Wills: Law and Practice, (Lagos; Mbeyi and Associates, 2004), Page 6.** - **6.1.7** This court must respect the testator's testamentary freedom. Testamentary freedom is a principle in Wills Law by which a person is free to dispose of his/her property however and to whomever he wishes in his Will. It is the idea that a person has the right to choose who will succeed to things of value left behind at death. - **6.1.8** The sanctity and finality of a deceased individual's Will is paramount and should be steadfastly respected. A Will represents the culmination of the deceased's deliberations and decisions regarding the distribution of their estate, reflecting their personal values, commitments, and responsibilities to those they hold dear. The deceased in making his Will was aware of the children of his deceased son who are the Plaintiffs and chose not to distribute any

property to them. Pio Katende's Will stands as a testament to his autonomy and wishes beyond the grave, embodying his right to determine the fate of his assets and possessions.

- **6.1.9** The deceased's intentions as articulated in his Will, supersede any potential desires or expectations of beneficiaries. While beneficiaries may hold hopes or expectations regarding inheritance, these aspirations do not supersede the legally binding instructions outlined in the Will. The judicial system, therefore, has a solemn duty to ensure that the expressed wishes of the deceased are honoured with the utmost fidelity and without undue influence or alteration. - **6.1.10** To alter or disregard the provisions of a Will without lawful grounds not only undermines the deceased's testamentary freedom but also disrupts the orderly and just distribution of their estate. It is through upholding the integrity of the deceased's expressed intentions that the legal system affirms respect for individual autonomy and the enduring significance of personal choice in matters of inheritance. Thus, the court's responsibility lies in safeguarding the finality and authority of the Will, ensuring that the deceased's wishes prevail over all others in the disposition of their estate. - **6.1.11** With regard to property disposed of, the Will speaks from death unless there is a contrary intention which is provided. The Golden Rule is that the court will endeavour to adopt a construction which gives a sensible meaning to the provisions of the Will and which will not lead to an intestacy. It is of course, accepted that a testator has a right to be capricious if he so wishes and if he uses words which are clear and unambiguous then the court has no alternative but to give effect of the testator's words unless an application is made to act otherwise.


- **6.1.12** It was the testimony of PW1 that the Late Pio Katende died testate and he was aware of that. He had seen the Will and he came across his grandfather's Will at the Lawyer's chambers. He read the Will and in the said Will, the deceased did not leave anything for Daudi Mukiibi. He further testified that the Defendant was not given land in Komamboga but instead the land in Komamboga was left behind for the girls who later divided it and started selling it. The land in Kiboga was bequeathed to the Defendant and he transferred it into his personal names. - **6.1.13** PW1 was also aware that a beneficiary must be named by the testator in his Will and that there was no specific bequest to the Late Daudi Mukiibi. - **6.1.14** PW1 further testified according to his paragraph 19 of his witness statement (evidence in chief) that, "the defendant did not disclose the Late Daudi Mukiibi Katende as one of the children and/or beneficiary of the Late Pio Katende when he applied for Letters of Administration. He added that by the time the defendant obtained the Letters of Administration in 2016, their father had already passed on". - **6.1.15** PW1 testified that this affected the estate of the Late Daudi Mukiibi Katende since his father had died before Pio Katende and therefore this passed on the estate of Daudi Mukiibi Katende to them and they feel entitled to the estate of their grandfather. - **6.1.16** During the meetings at the Administrator General, the Defendant mentioned that Daudi Mukiibi Katende was survived by three children, namely Nakibombo, Nankinga and Katiisa Joel, and the deceased (Pio Katende) died testate. The deceased was survived by 5 children and grandchildren. The deceased did not appoint an executor and being so, it was suggested that the applicant/the

Defendant is issued with a Certificate of No Objection.

 - **6.1.17** Counsel for the Plaintiffs stated while closing the Plaintiffs case that they were not disputing the Will and Letters of Administration with a Will annexed but they were challenging the share or whether they were entitled to a share of the estate of the deceased. - **6.1.18** The Defendant was granted Letters of Administration with a Will annexed which Will was not contested by the Plaintiffs. Upon consideration of the Will which is the representation of the deceased's instructions in death, the court finds that neither the estate of deceased Daudi Katende nor the Plaintiffs have a beneficial interest in the estate of the Late Pio Katende regarding any testate property of the deceased.

## **7.0**. **Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a beneficial share in the estate of the Late Pio Katende**

- 7.1 On 18th February, 2020, the Defendant filed an inventory **("DEX3")** of the estate of the Late Pio Katende. He reported that land formerly comprised in Kyadondo Block 196 Plot 70 was dealt with as per the Will of the deceased and the same was subdivided and given to the daughters of the deceased as follows; Geraida Nalweyiso got Plots 1975 and 1976, Nampinga Annet got Plot 1972, Judith Katende got Plot 1971, Peggy Namakula Katende got Plot 1974, and Christine Nabbutto (Deceased) got Plot 1973. According to "**PEX2"** all the certificates of title are registered in the name of Gerald Katende as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Pio Katende vide Administration Cause No. 2323 of 2016 in the High Court of Uganda, at Kampala). All titles were created on the same day (29th November, 2018) but different times. - 7.2 The defendant further stated as per the Inventory that Plots 1932 and 1933 were reserved for the preservation of the Late Pio Katende's home and family graveyard. The usage and/or


development of the residual plots was to be jointly resolved by the daughters and himself.

- 7.3 A perusal of "PEX2", Block 196 Plot 1931 though not mentioned in the inventory was created on 29th November, 2018 and transferred to Sebatindira Fahmy on 6th March, 2019 vide Instrument No. KCCA-00059106 from the Defendant as an Administrator of the deceased's estate. - 7.4 According to the deceased Will, it was mentioned therein that the land in Komamboga measuring 4 acres should not be distributed and it should be managed by the daughters. The Defendant while filing the inventory stated that he distributed the Komamboga land according to the Will and it was exciting to learn how he distributed this part of the estate only to discover that even the sizes differed among the daughters without reason, for example Plot 1972 is 0.1470 hectares compared to Plot 1973 which is 0.1510 hectares. I note that this was contrary to the Will since it stated that the land in Komamboga should not be distributed. - 7.5 Since the Will which both parties consider to be valid and have no problem with left part of the estate undistributed, it created an intestate part of the estate of the deceased. Ordinarily, in case it is discovered that property was left out in the Will, practically the best way forward is to obtain Letters of Administration to administer the intestate part of the estate. - 7.6 DW2 in regard to the exhibited inventory (DEX3) stated that the land comprised in Singo Block 608 Plot 10 at the time of filing the inventory was still registered in the name of Edward Sulemani Mbuku Baliruno (deceased) but it was yet to be transferred into the names of the administrator of the said Baliruno's estate and subsequently to be transferred to the beneficiaries (children of Salongo Wagaba and Pio Katende who bought it from the said


Baliruno) thereof as follows; (a) 20 acres to Nakyagaba Asha on behalf of Salongo Wagaba (deceased) and 20 acres to Gerald Katende on behalf of Pio Katende (deceased).

- 7.7 I take note that at time of filing the inventory the acreage of the land in Singo increased in size contrary to the Will of the Late Pio Katende who stated therein that the land in Singo was 17.5 acres. - 7.8 The Defendant stated in the inventory that the parcel of land for the benefit of the Late Pio Katende comprised in land at Kasejjere, Singo on Block 608 Plot 10 which was bequeathed to him and that he was in physical occupation of the same at the time but out of natural love and affection he had given 5 acres out of Plot 10 to the children of his late brother Mukiibi David who happen to be the Plaintiffs in this suit. He signed the inventory and dated it 29th January, 2020. - 7.9 **Section 79 of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** provides that, "*where property is bequeathed to any person, he or she is entitled to the whole interest of the testator or testatrix in the property, unless it appears from the will that only a restricted interest was intended for him or her".* - 7.10 The Will of the Late Pio Katende mentioned that he bequeathed the land in Singo 17.5 acres of land to the Defendant. This was specific and the Will was not contested. Meaning the land in Singo belongs to the Defendant as per the Will. - 7.11 According to the Defendant, DEX3 (the inventory) which he exhibited in the court contained a full and true estimate of all the property in his possession as an Administrator showing the assets that came to his hands and the manner in which he disposed them of. - 7.12 In my opinion, the land in Komamboga was not bequeathed to any beneficiary in the Will, instead the daughters were to care take. I realise there was some ambiguity when the testator stated that; "*will*


*have the discretion to determine any issues respecting the home/land".* Initially, the testator mentioned that the land was not given out and it was undistributed. This brings in the intestate part of the estate, Komamboga being the undistributed estate.

- 7.13 DW1 (Geraida Nalweyiso) testified that the land in Komamboga was supposed to be distributed to the girls (daughters) and they are using it. She further stated that she had no certificate of title of the said land at Komamboga but they are using the land jointly but she was shown the land by the Defendant and directed to use it. - 7.14 I find that the land in Komamboga, upon distribution was supposed to be distributed among the beneficiaries and these included the Plaintiffs. I am quick to add that the land as per the testimony of DW1 was distributed and the inventory reflects the same. Therefore, there is nothing to distribute at the moment to the Plaintiffs.

## 8.0. **Whether the Defendant fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration with a Will annexed for the estate of the Pio Katende?**

- 8.1 The Plaintiff's submitted relying on the case of **Fredrick Zaabwe Versus Orient Bank & Others, SCCA No. 4 of 2006** defining fraud as the intentional perversion of truth to induce another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. - 8.2 The Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendant at all times knew that they were children of the deceased, Daudi Katende and dishonestly did not list Daudi Katende as a son of the deceased Pio Katende and therefore a beneficiary of the estate.



- 8.3 They further stated that the 1st and 4th Plaintiff were listed in the petition for Letters of Administration with a Will annexed as being deceased children of the Late Pio Katende. - 8.4 In reply to this, the Defendant submitted that the minutes of the meeting were misunderstood and therefore misrepresented by the Defendant's counsel. - 8.5 During the family meeting with the Town Clerk of Kawempe Division Urban Council on 14th December, 2015, the family members declared that the deceased left a Will, his wife died before his death, he left 5 children and there are children who died but left their own children and these were Nakibombo Teopista (32 years) and Katiisa Joel (28 years). The deceased's property was not encumbered (land), the deceased had a home in Komamboga Ward Central zone, Block 196 Plot 70 measuring approximately 4.0 acres and 17 acres in Kasenjjere, Kiboga District. The family members chose Kaleebi Katende Gerald as a person to whom Letters of Administration/a Certificate of No Objection should be granted. - 8.6 A Certificate of No Objection was issued on 18th August, 2016. The Petitioner then made an application for Letters of Administration with a Will Annexed on 12th December, 2016 and in the petition stated as before in the meeting with the Town Clerk and the Administrator General that at the time of his death, the deceased was a widower and was survived by five (5) biological children and at the time of his death he had lost two biological children who predeceased him namely Nakibombo and Katiisa. - 8.7 The Defendant made a declaration that the Late Pio Katende died testate and that he could faithfully administer the estate and effects of the deceased by paying his just debts and distributing the residue of the estate and effects according to his last testament and exhibiting a true inventory of all and singular the said properties


and credits of the said estate and effects and render a just and true account thereof whenever required by law so to do of the estate of the deceased and this he did on 18th February, 2020.

- 8.8 Following the Petition, verification, declaration and identification, Letters of Administration (with the Will Annexed) were granted to the Defendant on 15th September 2017. - 8.9 It is my finding, therefore, that there was no fraud in obtaining the Letters of Administration (with the Will annexed) by the Defendant. I take note of the names of the deceased children of Pio Katende being Nakibombo and Kasiita. It was a mistake as testified by the Defendant and besides the Plaintiffs participated in the process meaning that when this irregularity occurred they would have corrected it in the meeting. The family recognised the Will and they wished to have it proved and the only way was through obtaining Letters of Administration with a Will annexed. - 8.10 According to paragraph 9 of the Plaint, PW1 stated therein that; "*the Defendant disclosed me by my alias name Katiisa Joel in the family meeting minutes even though my official name is Joel Katende".* This by itself means that since he was in attendance of the said meeting as indicated in the evidence in chief, he ought to have corrected the anomaly but he seemed fine with it. - 8.11 PW1 testified that the Defendant obtained Letters of Administration fraudulently since he did not include their late father's name and he did not carry out his obligations as an Administrator by not giving them their father's share and no other reasons. To the Plaintiffs, leaving their father out of the Petition amounted to fraud. - 8.12 The Defendant stood to gain nothing by listing the 1st and 4th Plaintiffs as deceased. In that regard, the court finds that the


Defendant did not obtain Letters of Administration with a Will annexed to the estate of the deceased Pio Katende fraudulently.

## **9.0 Issue 5. What remedies are available to the parties?**

- **9.1** The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the deceased died intestate regarding the Land in Komamboga. The deceased indeed died intestate regarding the Land in Komamboga having stated that it should not be distributed. - **9.2** It was the testimony of PW1 that he and his siblings were entitled to the land in Kiboga. He wanted a share of the land together with the siblings and that he had applied for revocation of the Letters of Administration to the Defendant. - **9.3** This court observed that there is no Civil Suit in reference to revocation of Letters of Administration and this suit is not in reference to revocation of Letters of Administration. - **9.4** Furthermore, the Plaintiffs relied on **Section 31** *(then 38 as amended)* **of the Succession Act, Cap. 268** to state that as lineal descendants of the deceased, Pio Katende, they are entitled to maintenance under his estate. - **9.5** Accordingly, **Section 31(1) (then Section 38 (1) of the Succession Act Cap. 162 (as before amendment)** provided that "Where a person dies domiciled in Uganda leaving a dependent relative, then, if the court, on application by or on behalf of the dependent relative of the deceased, is of opinion that the disposition of the deceased's estate effected by his or her will is not such as to make reasonable provision for the maintenance of that dependent relative, the court may order that such reasonable provision as the court thinks fit shall, subject to such conditions or restrictions, if any, as the court may impose, be made out of the deceased's estate for the maintenance of that dependent relative."

- **9.6 Subsection 2** provides that where this dependent relative/lineal descendant attains the age of twenty-one the maintenance shall cease unless they are mentally or physically incapacitated as to prevent them from being able to care for themselves. - **9.7** The court finds that the Plaintiffs did not present evidence of mental or physical disability entitling them to maintenance under the estate of the Late Pio Katende. - **9.8** No order shall be issued compelling the Defendant to apportion the Plaintiffs a share of the estate of the Late Pio Katende at Komamboga for to do so would lead to chaos since as testified the estate was already disposed of and distributed to the daughters and part of it already transferred to a one Sebantidira Fahmy. Instead, the Defendant filed an inventory alleging that he had given the Plaintiffs 5 acres of land in Singo. This he said was done out of natural love, which this court opines should prevail as it was only fair that the Plaintiffs share in their grandfather's intestate estate. However, DW2 testified that the 5 acres of land had been rejected by the Plaintiffs. In testimony to this court, the Plaintiffs stated that they were willing to accept the 5 acres. - **9.9** Since the intestate part of the estate was already distributed, it is only fair and just that these 5 acres be given to the Plaintiffs, as claimed to have been done by the Defendant to compensate for what should have been distributed to them as lineal descendants in the intestate part of the estate in Komambaga. Therefore, the 5 acres attested should be given to the Plaintiffs. - **9.10** The Plaintiffs also prayed for general damages, aggravated damages, mesne profits and interest thereof. However, the court finds that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove to this court that the Defendant's actions are those warranting the award of damages.


**9.11** To this end, there is no award for aggravated damages, general damages, mesne profits and interest thereof as no proof has been made by the Plaintiffs.

*Dated, Signed and Delivered at High Court of Uganda, Family Division, Kampala via Email this 30th day of July 2024***.**