Dr Twinobuhingiro Aska and Others v Administrator of the Estate of the Late George William Kabugo (Civil Application No. 140 of 2024) [2026] UGSC 9 (6 March 2026)

1 2 3 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [Coram: lrlusoke, Musota, Madrama, Bamugemereue and Kbeedi, JJ.SC] clvtL APPLtcATtoN NO. 00140F 2024 (Arising from Civil Appeal No 13 of 2024) DR TwINOBUHINGIRO ASKA CHRISTOPHER KYANKU JANE KYANKU APPLICANTS VERSUS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE GEORGE WILLIAM KABUGO RESPONDENT t1l The above application was initially filed by M/S Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates on behalf of the Applicants above-named seeking orders of this Court for extension of time for filing and service of the Notice of Appeal, and the Memorandum and Record of Appeal. The Applicants further sought the validation of Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2024. However, during the hearing, of the application it emerged that the application and the appeal were filed by M/S Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates without instructions from the second and third Applicants. We accordingly struck out the second and third Applicants from the application and left the first Applicant as the sole applicant in the subsequent proceedings. 12) At the core of the dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is Mailo land located in Buddo, Nakiragala, Naggalabi, Wakiso District. The land constitutes a portion of the three acres purchased by the Late George William Kabugo, by agreement dated May 05rh, 1992, fl Page I of 12 RULING OF THE COURT lntroduction Factual Backqround from Emmanuel Mukiibi Nsalabwa, acting in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of the Late Gideon Mukiibi Nsalabwa. At the time of George William Kabugo's death in 2000, he had not yet obtained the Certificate of Title from the vendor, despite having fully settled the purchase price. t3l Following the demise of the late George William Kabugo, his widow, Mrs. Juliet Kabugo, was granted probate over the deceased's will. Mrs. Juliet Kabugo apparently requested Emmanuel Mukiibi Nsalabwa to reveal the physical location of the land purchased by her late husband from him, as well as to surrender the Certificate of Title. Emmanuel Mukiibi Nsalabwa did not comply with this request. Subsequently, Mrs. Juliet Kabugo conducted a search in the land registry and was able to identify the land purchased by her late husband. Furthermore, she discovered from the land search that Emmanuel Mukiibi Nsalabwa had commenced selling portions of the land. ln order to safeguard her late husband's estate interests, Mrs. Juliet Kabugo registered a caveat. Subsequently, she initiated legal proceedings against Emmanuel Mukiibi Nsalabwa, the registered proprietor of the disputed land, seeking an order for the vesting of three (3) acres to be delineated from the property. t4l The court proceedings concerning the vesting order were conducted ex pafte before Hon. Percy Tuhaise, J (as she then was). The court issued an order vesting three acres of land, out of the land encompassed within Busiro Block 351 Plot 604, into the administrator of the estate of George William Kabugo, the Respondent herein. The vested parcel of land became known as Busiro Block 351 Plot 911 at Buddo. tsl The Applicants were not party to the proceedings in respect of the Vesting Order. Claiming to be persons aggrieved by the Vesting Order, which was made without giving them a hearing, the Applicants successfully challenged the Vesting Order by way of review before Hon. Justice Bashaiya who set aside the orders of Hon. Percy Tuhaise, J (as she then was). The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal under Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2016. @ Page 2 of 12 .* t61 ln its decision made on the 08th May 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reinstated the Vesting Order that was made by Hon. Percy Tuhaise, J (as she then was) in favour ofthe Respondent. The Court of Appeal decision was uploaded onto Ulii and is currently cited as [2024] UGCA 101, l7l Dissatisfied, the 1,t Applicant sought to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to this Court. The 'l.t Applicant's advocates before the Court of Appeal, M/S Jambo & Co. Advocates, filed the Notice of Appeal and the Letter requesting for certified Court proceedings on the 23ro of ltay 2024. The 1't Applicant's advocates did not serve the Notice of Appeal and the Letter requesting for proceedings upon the Respondent within the time prescribed by the Rules of this Court. t81 lt appears that in July 2024 lhe 1st Applicant engaged another Law Firm, MiS Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates, to pursue his appeal. On the 22no July 2024, the new advocates filed the Memorandum and Record of Appeal under case number: Supreme Courl Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2024 Dr. Twinobuhungiro Aska & 2 Others Vs The Administrator of the Estate of the Late George William Kabugo. They further filed this application, Civil Application No. 014 of 2024, seeking extension of time and validation of Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 o12024 Representation t91 When this Application came up for hearing, the 1st Applicant was represented by Mr. Muzamiru Ndhego Mugendi, while the Respondent was represented by Mr. Peter Allan Musoke and Mr. Yusuf Betunda. [10] As only the 1,t Applicant had filed written submissions by the time of the hearing the application, the Court directed the Respondent to file her written submissions by '1Orh November 2025, while the 1st Applicant was given upto 13th November 2025 to file his Rejoinder (if any). As such, we have considered the written submissions filed by both parties @ when resolving this application. Page 3 of 12 M The 1.t Applicant's Case [1 1] The 'lst Applicant's case is set out in detail in the Notice of Motion filed in this matter, the '1st Applicant's Affidavitin-Support dated the 16th of July 2025, and the 1st Applicant's Afiidavit in-Rejoinder dated the 04th of November 2025. ['12] ln summary, the 1st Applicant claims that as soon as the Court of Appeal rendered the impugned judgment against him, he instructed his lawyer at the time, Mr. Rwalinda Jambo Godfrey, of M/S Jambo & Co. Advocates, to appeal against the decision. The said lawyers filed the Notice of Appeal and the Letter applying for certified proceedings on 23'0 May 2024 but did not serve any of the said documents upon the Respondents. He attributed the failure to comply with the timelines prescribed by the Rules of this Court for filing and service of the Notice of Appeal and the Letter to the fault of his previous Counsel. The 1st Applicant prays that he should not be penalised for the errors and mistakes of his former advocates and cites the authorities of Manskhlal & Another v Aftorney General & 2 Others (Civil Application 1 of 2003) [20031UGSC 45 (20 June 2003) and Andrew Bamanyav Shamsherali 7aver, SC- Civil Application No. 7 of 1999 in support of his plea. [13] The 1st Applicant further stated that during his follow up, he discovered the errors on the part of the previous advocates, and he changed instructions to M/S Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates. The new advocates filed the Memorandum and Record of Appeal on 22no July 2024 - albeil out of time. They also filed the instant application for validation of the appeal. [14] The 1st Applicant also argued that the appeal raised meritorious grounds of appeal as the land in respect of which the Court of Appeal re-instated the Vesting Order did not belong to the Late Kabugo. lnstead, contended the Applicant, it belonged the estate of the Late Gideon Musoke Nsalabwa and that the 1't Applicant's interest in the land was as a purchaser of the @ Page 4 of 12 b, interest of one of the beneficiaries of the estate of the Late Gideon Musoke Nsalabwa. Accordingly, it is in the interest of justice that the application is granted with costs. [15] The Respondent opposed the application, and set out the detailed reasons for the opposition in Mrs. Juliet Kabugo's Affidavitin-Reply deposed on 03,0 November 2023, Mr. Bernad Mabonga's Affidavit-in-Reply dated 03,0 November 2023, and Mns. Jane Kyanku's Affidavit- in-Reply sworn on the 03'o November 2023. [16] ln her affidavit, the Respondent stated that she is "the immediate Administrator of the estate of the late George William Kabugo" by virtue of the Probate of the Will of the late George William Kabugo, which expired on 31st May 2025. Consequently, the application filed by the 1st Applicant against her was directed at an "extinguished party" following the expiration of the Probate granted to her over the estate of the late George William Kabugo under HCT-A/C No. 48 of 2002. She had fully administered and wound up the estate prior to this. ln her submissions, the Respondent contended that granting the application would be prejudicial to the estate. [17] The Respondent further stated that, upon obtaining the Judgment in her favour in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2016, she reached out to the parties with a view of reaching an amicable agreement. She was able to reach one with the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, while the 1st Applicant declined to have any engagement with her. The Respondent contended that the instant application is misconceived and the intended Appeal from which it arises is bad in law and lacks merit, and a ploy by the 1st Applicant to delay the realization of the fruits of the judgment in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2016. [18] ln an affidavit by her advocate, Mr. Benard Mabonga, the Respondent confirmed that the 1st Applicant, through his legal counsel M/S Jambo & Co. Advocates, submitted the Notice of Appeal and a letter requesting the court record on May 23, 2024. ECCMIS records show the 4 Page 5 of 12 The Respondent's Replv M Court endorsed the Notice of Appeal on May 28,2024. However, the 1st Applicant did not serve the Respondent or her counsel with the letter requesting the record and the Notice of Appeal until September 2025. The Respondent criticizes the 1st Applicant for negligence and delay, arguing that the documents were filed well past the deadline without a valid reason. [19] The Respondent also contended that the Applicant's proposed grounds of appeal are not anchored in the decision of the Court of Appeal which the 1st Applicant seeks to impeach and, thereby, cannot be of any jurisprudential value. [20] The Respondent concluded by urging this Court to dismiss the application with costs. "72. Notice of appeal (l)Any person who deslres to appeal to the courl shall give notice in writing, which shall be lodged in duplicate with the registrar of the Cout of Appeal. (2)Every notice under subrule (1) ot this rule shall, subject to rules 80 and 91 of these Rules, be lodged within fourteen days afrer the date of the decision against which lf ls deslred fo appeal.' [22] ln the instant matter, the Cou( of Appeal's decision having been delivered on the 08th of May 2024,|he filing of the Notice of Appeal should have been completed by the 22.0 ltllay 2024. However, the Affidavit evidence of the 1$ Applicant indicates that his advocates filed the Notice of Appeal on 23,0 May 2025. This was late filing by one day. Page 6 of 12 Analvsis and determination of the application [21] lt is undisputed that the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the prescribed deadline by the former advocates of the 1st Applicant and was not served in accordance with the requirements set out in Rule 72(1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court, which oblige an intending Appellant to file the Notice of Appeal within 14 days from the date on which the decision was rendered, as explicitly stated in the following terms: # M t23l On the other hand, service of the Notice of Appeal should have been effected upon the Respondent within seven days before or after its filing pursuant to Rule 74(1) of the Rules of this Court which provides as follows: "74, Service of notice ol appeal on persons affected (1)An intended appellant shall, before or within seven days afrer lodging notice of appeal, serve coples of it on all persons directly affected by the appeal; but the coui may on application, which may be made ex parte, direct that service need not be effected on a person who took no parl in the proceedings in the High Court or Courl of Appeal." [24] ln the Affidavit in Reply sworn on 03'd of November 2025 by one the Respondent's Advocates, Mr. Bernad Mabonga, he states that he confirmed from the ECCMIS that the Notice of Appeal and the letter applying for certified court proceedings were filed on 23d May 2025. Further that the Notice was endorsed by the Court on the 28th May 2024. However, states Mr. Benard Mabonga, the Applicants did not serve the Notice of Appeal and the Letter requesting for the proceedings on the Respondent or her Counsel until after September 2025. This was likewise outside the prescribed time. Therefore, the question for consideration by this Court is whether the 1st Applicant has made out a case for extension of time and validation of Civil Appeal No. '13 of the 2024 pending before this Court. [25] lt is settled law that for an applicant for extension of time to succeed, he/she must prove "sufficient reason". This is pursuant to Rule 5 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules which is couched as follows: - "5. Extension of time The courl may, for sufficient reason, ertend the time prescribed by these Rules or by any decision of the court or of the Court of Appeal for the doing of any act authorised or required by these Rules, whether before or after the expiration of that time and whether before or after the doing of the act; and any reference in these Ru/es to any such time shall be conslrued as a reference to the time as so exfended " Emphasis added Page 7 of 12 4, [26] What amounts lo "sufficient reason" has likewise been settled by this Court. ln Boney M. Katatumba Vs. Waheed Karim, [2008] UGSC 3, Mulenga, JSC while interpreting Rule 5 of the Supreme Court rules succinctly put it thus: "Under r 5 of the Supreme Courl Rules, the Courl may, for sufficient reason, ertend the time prescribed by the Rules. What constitutes 'sufficient reason' ls lefr to the Courl's unfettered discretion. ln this contert, the Courl will accept either a reason that prevented an applicant from taking the essentla/ step in time, or other rcasons why the intended Appeal should be allowed to proceed though out of time. For example, an Application that is brought promptly will be considered more sympathetically than one that is brought afrer unexplained inordinate delay. But even where the application is unduly delayed, the Courl may grant the ertension if shutting out the appeal nay appear to cause injustice." [27] The reason advanced by the 1,t Applicant to invoke this Court's discretionary power for extension of time and validation of Civil Appeal No. 13 of lhe 2024 is an error or mistake or fault on the part of his former advocate. Does this constitute "sufficient reason" in the circumstances of this case? [28] This Court has held in a number of cases that mistakes or inadvertence by Counsel should not necessarily be visited on the litigants. See Godfrey Magezi and Anor Vs. Sudhir Ruparelia [2004] UGSC 33, F.L Kaderbhai and Anor Vs. Shamsherali Zaver Virji & Ors [2008] ucsc 20. "lt is now seftled that omlsslon or mistake or inadveftence of counsel ought not to be visited on to the litigant, leading to the striking out of his Appeal thereby denying him justice. There are many declslons from this court and other jurisdictions in which it has been held that an Application for ertension of time, such as fhis one, where mistake or error or misunderstanding of the applicant's legal advisor, even though negligent have been accepted as a proper ground for granting relief under rules equivalent to Rule 4 (ead 5) of the Ru/es of this Cout, which is the Rule under which this Application was brought..,.... Further, errors/misfakes of courl officials have been held to be sufficient grounds tor granting extension of time to the applicant to file his or her Appeal out of time." M Page 8 of 12 l29l ln Godtrey Magezi and Anor Vs Sudhir Ruparelia [20041 UGSC 5, while considering the matter of the effect of mistakes of Counsel on Appeals of litigants, Karokora, JSC stated, [30] ln the instant matter, the evidence before the Court is indicative that the lstApplicant craved to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision and has been vigilant in his quest for justice. The delay to file the Notice of Appeal was only by one day. [32] We have also considered the fact that the underlying subject matter of the dispute is land. Our history teaches us that land has been a very sensitive subject politically, socially, and economically. The earliest nationalist uprisings in Uganda during the colonial era are traceable to land injustice and came to be known as the 'Bataka Movement" (See'. Prof. Dan Wadada Nabudere, lmperialism and revolution in Usanda, Onyx Press, London, 1980 fl e 9of12 [31] Vigilance on the part of the 1st Applicant is further demonstrated by the fact that as soon as he discovered the error and non-vigilance on the part of his advocates, M/S Jambo & Co. Advocates, he engaged another law firm, M/S Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates to give him the technical guidance required to pursue his right to appeal to its logical conclusion. The said advocates went ahead to file a Memorandum and Record of Appeal on the 22ndof July2024 which was about 75 days after the date of the impugned judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered. Even if the Memorandum and Record of Appeal were likewise filed outside the prescribed time, they nonetheless show vigilance on the part of the 1s Applicant to pursue his right of appeal to this Court. ln our view, where an applicant for extension of time takes a step further and files the Memorandum and Record of Appeal - albeit out of time - he/she is entitled to more favorable consideration when the Court is resolving his/her application for extension of time than a litigant who simply filed the Notice of Appeal and did nothing more towards getting the paper work involved in lodging of the substantive appeal completed. paqes 50 - 50. [33] The sensitivity of land justice has not changed much to this date. As such, Courts of law must among others, always be mindful of our history as they exercisetheir judicial mandate in the sphere of land justice and place greater emphasis on the resolution of land disputes on their merits and inter pafties in preference to giving greater prominence to procedural lapses on the part of the litigants. The party guilty of the procedural lapses can always be penalised by way of costs. [34] We have also considered the potential prejudice to the estate of the Late Kabugo if the application is granted after her administrator has submitted the final accounts to court, indicating the completion of her administration of the estate. lt has been observed that both the appeal and this application were filed before the alleged conclusion of the estate's administration, with the deceased's widow and legal representative participating in proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal regarding the suit land, Consequently, the first applicant's claim before the Supreme Court is regarded in accounting terms as a"contingent liabiltg." fhe final accounts of the estate, which Mrs Kabugo asserts to have filed, should have disclosed the applicant's litigation claim as a contingent liability. The submission of the final estate accounts and the expiry of the Probate grant to Mrs Kabugo did not automatically extinguish the first applicant's right to appeal against the estate of the deceased. Sections 255 and 337 of the Succession Act, Cap. 268 of the 2023 Revised Edition of the Laws of Uganda, provide for the extension of Probate by the High Court and Chief Magistrate's Courts upon showing good cause. ln other appropriate circumstances, the High Court and Chief Magistrate's Court are authorized by Section 218 of the Succession Act to designate an administrator solely for the purpose of representing the deceased's estate in ongoing Court proceedings. Thereafter, Rule 81(2)of the Court's Rules gives this Court the discretion, upon an interested person's application, to direct that the legal representative of the deceased be made a party to the appeal to defend the estate. [35] Consequently, there is no risk of injustice beyond the customary concerns associated with contingent liabilities and the procedural inconveniences typically involved in appointing a proper legal representative for the estate of the late Kabuga, as has been demonstrated in the present case. ffi M, Page 10 of 12 [36] ln the premises aforesaid, we are satisfied that the vigilance displayed by the 1st Applicant when faced with the enors and mistakes on the part of his former advocate, the short period outside the prescribed periods within which the lstApplicant filed the Notice of Appealand the substantive appeal itself, coupled with the nature of the dispute constitute sufficient reason under Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court to justify the grant of the'lst Applicant's application for extension of time and validation of Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2024. We accordingly grant the application for extension of time and validation of Civil Appeal 13 of 2024 in respect of the 1,r Applicant's claim only. [37] Regarding the costs associated with this application, the prevailing legal principle stipulates that such costs typically follow the outcome of the case. Nonetheless, in the present matter, had it not been for the enors and mistakes committed by the First Applicant's Counsel, this application would not have been necessary. To award the First Applicant the costs of this application, following the acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the Advocates freely chosen by the First Applicant, would be equivalent to rewarding the First Applicant for errors in selecting Counsel. Therefore, this case presents a situation in which the successful party should be denied recovery of costs for the application. [38] Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs of the application. 1 . The 1$ Applicant's application for extension of time is hereby granted. 2. Civil Appeal 13 ol 2024 is, accordingly, hereby validated in respect of the 1s Applicant's claim only. 3. Each party shall bear its costs of the application. @ Page 11 of 12 [39] Disposition 4. The Court files in Civil Appeal 13 of 2024 are hereby referred back to the Registry to enable the parties first sort out the procedural issues regarding the representation of the estate of the Late Kabugo going forward before the appropriate Court. Signed: It is so ordered. ELIZABETH MUSOKE Justice of the Supreme Court @ L.14 STEPHEN MUSOTA Justice of the Supreme Court CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA IZAMA Justice of the Supreme Court CATHERINE BAMUGEMEREIRE Justice of the Supreme Court MUZAMIRU MUTANGULA KIBEEDI Justice of the Supreme Court 2026 i, Justice of the S p e Court/ Registrar Page 12 of 12 @ Derivered and dated at Kampata ,ns fiFE rr llt-.f-