Mmere Rusoke and Another v Estate of Late Rusoke (HCT-01-FD-AC 22 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 1032 (30 October 2024)

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

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

## **HCT – 01 – FD – AC – 0022 – 2022**

#### **IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE RUSOKE ANDREW**

#### **1. MMERE RUSOKE**

### **2. KABAGANDA ANNET ::::::::::: APPLICANTSS/PETITIONERS**

#### **VERSUS**

#### **THE ESTATE OF THE LATE**

# **RUSOKE ANDREW ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

# **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA**

#### **RULING**

The petitioner filed this petition for letters of administration over the estate of the late Rusoke Andrew, formerly a resident of Kyeganga Zone, Mpara Town Council, Kyegegwa District. A notice of presentation of the petition was issued by court on 12th April 2023 and advertised in Daily Monitor newspapers of 9th May 2023 and a copy filed on court record.

Prior to the grant, a caveat was lodged by Kasangati Hamis on the 15th of June 2023 where he alleged that he was a beneficiary under the estate who claimed that part of the properties included in the petition belong to the estate of the late Yolamu Bitamazire the grandfather, not part of the estate of the late. That these included land at Kyeganga, Mpara belonging to the family of the late Yolamu Bitamazire. That he was entitled to a share in the said estate but was not mentioned as a beneficiary. On


the 27th of June 2023, the petitioners filed a reply to the caveat in which they indicated that the caveator was not a biological child of the late and thus not a beneficiary under his estate.

Since filing the reply to the caveat on 27th June 2023, neither the petitioners nor the caveator took any action to have the petition disposed of. Court on its own motion cause listed the matter for 1st December 2023 for the petitioners to show cause why petition should not be dismissed. On the said date, none of the parties appeared.

#### *Decision:*

Section 255A of the Succession Amendment Act 2022 provides that:

*"Caveat and petition to lapse*

*(1) A petitioner for probate or letters of administration in respect of which a caveat has been lodged shall, within six months from the date the caveat was lodged, file a suit for removal of the caveat.*

*(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who lodges a caveat in respect of a petition for probate or letters of administration shall, within six months from the date the caveat was lodged, commence proceedings to prove the objections contained in the caveat.*

*(3) Where a person who lodges a caveat or a petitioner for probate or letters of administration does not comply with subsection (l) or (2), the caveat and the petition for probate or letters of administration shall lapse.*

*(4) Where a caveat lodged under subsection (2) lapses, the person who lodged the caveat shall not lodge another caveat in respect of the same estate."*


The above provision instructs both the petitioner and the caveator to take action within six months by way of filing a regular suit either to have the caveat removed in case of a petitioner or to prove the claims in the caveat in case of the caveator. Where no action is taken within the six months, the caveat and the petition both lapse. In the present case, petitioners did not file a suit to have the caveat removed neither the caveator to prove the claims in the caveat within six months which fell due on 16th December 2023 the caveat having been lodged on 15th June 2023. Therefore, both the petition and caveat lapsed under section 255A (3) of the Succession Amendment Act of 2022. I thus strike out the petition on that account.

I so order.

**Dated at Fort Portal this 30th day of October 2024.**


Vincent Wagona

**High Court Judge**

**FORTPORTAL**