The High Court of Uganda sitting in Mbale has rejected an application to register and enforce a Kenyan Succession Judgment concerning land in Uganda’s Bulambuli District. The court ruled that foreign probate documents, including Letters of Administration (LOA), must be resealed by Uganda’s High Court to have legal effect.
Background of the Application
Rodgers Matifari Obata, the Applicant, sought to register and enforce a judgment issued by the High Court of Kenya at Bungoma in Succession Cause No. 195 of 2014. Obata claimed to be the administrator of his late father’s estate, Luke Matifari Waobata, who died on May 31, 2012.
The Kenyan court’s judgment ordered the redistribution of the deceased’s estate, including land in Bulambuli District, Uganda. Obata argued that the Kenyan court declared the Respondent, Wakesa Patrick, a fraudulent owner of the Ugandan land and ordered it redistributed among the beneficiaries of the estate.
Respondent’s Defense
The Respondent opposed the application. He argued that the land was jointly registered in his and the deceased’s names in 2011. In 2012, the deceased transferred the land to him as an inter vivos gift. He claimed that the land was not part of the deceased’s estate at death. The Respondent also stated that the Kenyan court had no jurisdiction over Ugandan land. Additionally, he pointed out that the letters of administration had not been resealed in Uganda.
The Respondent highlighted an affidavit from co-administrator, Peter Wangila Matifari, which acknowledged the gift.
Key Issues for Determination
The court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the Applicant had locus standi to file the application.
- Whether the Kenyan judgment could be registered in Uganda.
Applicant’s Arguments
Counsel Angura Emmanuel argued that the Applicant was a valid administrator of the estate. He stated that the deceased’s land in Uganda had been ordered to be shared among the beneficiaries. He claimed the Kenyan judgment was final, valid, unappealed, and not obtained by fraud, making it enforceable under Ugandan law.
Counsel cited Section 3(1) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) and Rule 4 of the related Rules (SI 9‑1). He emphasized that Uganda and Kenya, as Commonwealth countries, had reciprocal enforcement agreements. Counsel also referred to ABSA Bank Uganda Ltd v. Uchuma (Civil Case 316 of 2021), which held that foreign judgments create enforceable legal obligations.
Respondent’s Counterarguments
Counsel Wamimbi Jude challenged the Applicant’s locus standi. He pointed out that the letters of administration had been granted jointly to the Applicant and Peter Wangila Matifari, and these letters had not been resealed in Uganda. Counsel also asserted that the Kenyan court had no jurisdiction over Ugandan land and that the application should be dismissed as incompetent.
He argued that the land was a valid inter vivos gift, not part of the estate, and requested the court dismiss the application.
Read Also
Police Bond in Uganda Explained
Death Ends Matrimonial Disputes in Uganda
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Locus Standi
The court ruled that the Applicant lacked locus standi. It found that although the Kenyan court granted letters of administration jointly to the Applicant and Peter Wangila Matifari, the letters had not been resealed in Uganda. The court cited Section 2 of the Probates (Resealing) Act (Cap 266):
“Where a court of any country other than Uganda, grants probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person, the probate or letters so granted may, on being produced to, and a copy deposited with, the High Court, be sealed with the seal of that court, and thereupon shall be of the like force and effect, and have the same operation in Uganda as if granted by that court.”
Since the letters were not resealed, the court concluded they had no effect in Uganda. The court also noted that both administrators should have filed the application jointly, as required by law.
Registration of the Kenyan Judgment
The court determined that the Kenyan judgment could not be registered in Uganda. It emphasized that foreign judgments are registrable only if they are enforceable in the originating jurisdiction. Since the Kenyan court lacked jurisdiction over Ugandan land, the judgment could not be executed in Kenya, and therefore, could not be registered in Uganda.
The court cited Section 3(1)(a) & (b) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap 10):
“A judgment shall not be registered if at the date of the application—(a) it has been wholly satisfied; or (b) it could not be enforced by execution in the country of the original court.”
The court interpreted this to mean that Uganda will enforce only foreign judgments that are executable in their originating jurisdiction. It also referred to Volcano Holding Ltd v. All African Logistic Solutions (Misc Cause No. 230 of 2021), which affirmed that registration is discretionary and may be denied if not just or convenient.
Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the application. It ruled that the Kenyan judgment could not be registered or enforced over Ugandan land, and the Applicant lacked locus standi. The Applicant was ordered to pay costs. The ruling was delivered via email to the parties’ advocates on December 31, 2025.
