Mugenyi v Estate of Late Rev. Albert Byaruhanga (HCT-01-CV-MA-0056-2025) [2025] UGHC 541 (4 July 2025)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

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

# **HCT-01-CV-MA-0056-2025**

#### **(ARISING OUT HCT-01-CV-AC-141 OF 2009)**

**MUGENYI PETER C :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

#### **VERSUS**

# **THE ESTATE OF LATE REV. ALBERT BYARUHANGA :: RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA**

# **RULING**

#### **Introduction**:

- 1. The Applicant brought the instant Application by Notice of Motion under Section 256(2) and Section 337(2) of the Succession Act Cap 268, Sections 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 and Order 52 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1), seeking Orders that; - - **(1)The Letters of Administration for the estate of late FR. ALBERT BYARUHANGA Vide Administration Cause No. 141 of 2009 granted on the 29 January, 2010 be renewed and extended for a reasonable period.**


- **(2)The Applicant be granted leave to file an inventory outside the prescribed time.** - **(3)No Order as to costs.**

#### **Grounds of the Application**:

- 2. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant, *Mr. Mugenyi Peter C*. The grounds of the Application are that; - - (1)The Applicant applied for Letters of Administration for the estate of late Rev. Fr. Albert Byaruhanga and the same were granted to him on the 29th January, 2010. - (2)Upon being granted Letters of Administration the Applicant undertook the initiative to file a full and true inventory in this Honourable Court. - (3)The estate family land at Mugusu had issues on the Deed plan which necessitated Mailo Land owner and the neighbours to be corrected. - (4)The property in Kampala had been mortgaged and the Bank has extended the repayment period. - (5)The Applicant desires to seek leave of Court to file an inventory and account out of time, but unfortunately the grant has already expired. - (6)It is just, fair and equitable that the Application is allowed.


**2 |** P a g e

# **Representation and Hearing**:

- 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 30th June 2025, both the Applicant and his Counsel were absent. However, the Applicant through his Advocates of *M/s Ngaruye Ruhindi, Spencer & Co. Advocates* had filed written submissions which I have considered. - 4. In their written submissions, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was on the 29th day of January, 2010 granted letters of administration for the estate of the late Rev. Fr. Albert Byaruhanga by this honourable Court, and that the Applicant as an administrator managed to execute some of his duties but was unable to file a final account of the estate for genuine reasons and hence with the new amendment of the Succession Act, the said letters of administration have been found expired before a final account of the estate/inventory is filed. That the challenges met by the Applicant which were that the estate land at Mugusu had issues on the deed plan which necessitated Milo land owner and the neighbours to be corrected, ant that the property in Kampala had been mortgaged and the bank extended the repayment period of the loan which requires the Applicant to be in possession of a valid grant. - 5. That with the above challenges, the Applicant could not finalize the execution of his duties as an administrator hence this Application. Counsel prayed that this


Honourable Court finds merit in this Application and grants the renewal of the said letters of administration to enable the Applicant complete the process by filing a final account/ inventory of the Deceased's estate to this Honourable Court.

### **Issues**:

- 6. I will resolve the instant Application through this issue: - *(1) Whether the conditions for the extension of Letters of Administration have been met.*

#### **CONSIDERATION BY COURT**:

# **Issue**: **Whether the conditions for the extension of Letters of Administration have been met.**

7. **Section 337** of the **Succession Act, Cap 268**, deals with the expiry and renewal of letters of administration issued before the 31st day of May 2022. **Section 337(2)** provides that: *"A grant of probate or letters of administration issued by a court of competent jurisdiction before the 31st day of May, 2022, shall remain in force for a period of three years from the 31st day of May, 2022,"* while **Section 337 (4)** provides that, *"the duration of a grant of probate or letters of administration referred to in subsections (2) may, on application to court by the executor or executrix or an administrator or administratrix of an estate, be*


*extended for a reasonable period determined by court."* The purpose behind the introduction of these expiry dates for grants of letters of probate and letters of administration, was to address the widespread problem of protracted estate administration, to ensure that administrators act diligently, to promote accountability, and ultimately, to safeguard the interests of beneficiaries by ensuring timely winding up of estates.

- 8. The Applicant, *Mugenyi Peter C*, seeks an extension of his grant of letters of administration for the estate of the Late *Rev. Fr. Albert Byaruhanga*. I have critically examined the record of this Court in Administration Cause No. 141 of 2009 and established that the original grant was issued on 29th January 2010. Their authority was set to expire on May 31, 2025. The core of this Application rests on **Section 337 of the Succession Act, Cap 268**, which, governs the expiry and renewal of letters of administration granted before 31st May 2022. Specifically, **Section 337(2)** states that such grants remain valid for three years from 31st May 2022. Crucially, **Section 337(4)** provides the avenue for extension, allowing the court to extend the duration upon application by the executor or administrator for a "reasonable period determined by court." - 9. In my view, the conditions for the extension of letters of administration, may include the following:


- (a) **Valid and reasonable explanation for non-completion:** The Applicants must provide a justifiable reason why the administration could not be concluded within the initial grant period. - (b)**Necessity and usefulness of extension:** The extension must be essential for the proper and complete administration of the estate, indicating that the estate is not yet fully administered. - (c) **Diligence of the applicant:** The Applicants must demonstrate consistent effort in administering the estate and that they have not been negligent. - (d)**Best interests of beneficiaries:** The extension should serve the beneficiaries' best interests and not prejudice their rights. - 10. The Applicant provides several reasons for the non-completion of the estate administration within the prescribed time. Firstly, it is stated that *"the estate family land at Mugusu had issues on the Deed plan which necessitated Mailo Land owner and the neighbours to be corrected,"* and secondly, the Applicant states that *"the property in Kampala had been mortgaged and the Bank has extended the repayment period."* The Applicant however, has not provided this Court with any tangible evidence in regard to the said land at Mugusu or the alleged property in Kampala mortgaged with a bank. There is also no evidence whatsoever of a mortgage and the bank that mortgaged the property was also not


mentioned by the Applicant. This Court has therefore been left in the dark in respect of the properties which are still under administration.

- 11. While the Applicant asserts the necessity of the extension to finalize the estate administration, the lack of specific details regarding the outstanding tasks makes it challenging to assess the true necessity and usefulness. Without concrete evidence of the remaining administrative hurdles, the Court cannot fully ascertain if the extension is genuinely required for the proper and complete administration of the estate. The Applicant's general statements, without supporting documentation or specific timelines for the alleged property issues, weaken the argument for the extension's indispensable nature. - 12. The Applicant stated under **Paragraph 5** of his Affidavit in Support of the Application, that; -

*"The property in Kampala had been mortgaged and the Bank has extended the repayment period which requires me to be in possession of a valid GRANT."*

14. The particulars of the alleged property in Kampala were not described, the details of the mortgage were not given to this Court, the Bank which mortgaged the property was not disclosed, and the alleged period for which the loan repayment period was extended was never disclosed, thereby making it difficult for this


Court to believe the Applicant's assertions. As established in **Sections 101, 102, and 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap 8**, the burden of proof lies on the party who desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts. In this case, the Applicant, Mr. Mugenyi Peter C, bears the burden of proving that the conditions for the extension of Letters of Administration have been met.

- 15. The Supreme Court of Uganda, in **Frederick J. K. Zaabwe vs. Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006**, emphasized the importance of cogent and tangible evidence in proving facts. *Justice Bart Katureebe* (as he then was) stated that "he who alleges must prove, and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities." Similarly, in **Uganda Breweries Ltd vs. Uganda Railways Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2007**, the Court of Appeal reiterated that evidence must be sufficient to establish the facts alleged. In the instant case, the Applicant has left this Court to speculate on the veracity of all the pleaded facts. 16. In my view, an extension of letters of administration, being a matter touching - upon the fiduciary duties of an administrator, should only be allowed where there is a full and candid disclosure of all facts pertaining to the estate. This principle is founded on the inherent fiduciary nature of an administrator's role, who holds the estate in trust for the beneficiaries and is therefore accountable to them and


to the Court. The Court, as the ultimate protector of the interests of the beneficiaries, must be placed in a position to effectively supervise this trust and ensure its timely and proper administration. Without a complete and transparent account of the estate's assets, liabilities, and the specific hurdles impeding its finalization, the Court is left to make a decision in a vacuum, which could potentially prejudice the rights of the beneficiaries. In the present Application, the Applicant's failure to provide any tangible evidence regarding the alleged property issues in Mugusu and the mortgaged property in Kampala, including the specific bank and details of the loan, constitutes a material non-disclosure. This lack of particularity prevents the Court from verifying the necessity of the extension or the diligence of the Applicant. This requirement for full disclosure is a fundamental tenet of the law of evidence and equity. It aligns with the principle that *"he who alleges must prove,"* which ensures that judicial decisions are based on verifiable facts rather than on mere speculation or unsubstantiated claims. Granting an extension without this full disclosure would be tantamount to an abdication of the Court's supervisory role over the administration of justice and the protection of beneficiaries' rights.

17. The role of a trial Court is to evaluate the evidence presented to it by the parties, but not to conduct their own investigations or seek out evidence to support or


refute a particular claim. Since the Applicant has in the instant case opted to withhold the evidence upon which the Court may make a finding as to the whether the Applicant meets the above conditions for extension of letters of administration, the Court cannot rely on mere assertions, especially when dealing with the administration of an estate that impacts beneficiaries' rights. Without concrete proof, the Court is left to speculate on the veracity of the Applicant's claims, which is not permissible under the principles of evidence.

# **Conclusion and Orders**:

12. Therefore, I find that the Applicant has failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to justify the extension of the Letters of Administration. For the reasons stated above, the Application is hereby dismissed with no Order as to costs. I so Order.

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


Vincent Wagona

**High Court Judge**

**FORTPORTAL**

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