Court orders fresh administration of Prince Gabigogo estate
The court also ordered the Administrator General to identify the beneficiaries and ensure the deceased's assets are distributed in accordance with the law.
The judgment was delivered on September 4, 2026, by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti in Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017. (File photo)
________________
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision revoking letters of administration granted to Moses Rukidi in the estate of the late Prince Enock Kiiza Gabigogo and ordered the Administrator General to take over the estate.
The court also ordered the Administrator General to identify the beneficiaries and ensure the deceased's assets are distributed in accordance with the law.
The judgment was delivered on September 4, 2026, by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti in Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017.
Prince Enock Kiiza Gabigogo was the deceased whose estate was at the centre of the dispute.
Court records show that Rukidi was his son and had obtained letters of administration to the estate. Maria Paulina Namwanje Gabigogo, the second respondent, was the widow of the deceased and mother of Rukidi and other beneficiaries.
The beneficiaries sued Rukidi before the High Court in Masaka, seeking the revocation of his letters of administration, the distribution of the estate, and an order restraining him from further dealing with the property.
They also alleged that he had threatened to evict beneficiaries from the family home.
Rukidi denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim, accusing some of the beneficiaries of trespassing on land he claimed belonged to him.
The High Court, presided over by retired Judge Margaret Oguli Oumo, revoked his letters of administration and issued the grant to the Administrator General.
It also ordered the Administrator General to identify the beneficiaries and distribute the estate.
Rukidi appealed, arguing that the High Court had dealt with an issue that had already been decided by another court, that the case was time-barred and that the trial judge had wrongly evaluated the evidence and ordered the cancellation of his land titles.
The appellate court noted that Rukidi had earlier sued some of the respondents in the High Court Family Division, seeking a declaration that he was the rightful and subsisting heir of the late Prince Enock Gabigogo.
The Court of Appeal held that the issue of Rukidi's status as customary heir had already been determined and was therefore res judicata.
However, the court upheld the High Court's orders concerning the administration of the estate.
The appellate court found that the estate property had devolved to Rukidi as administrator in trust for the beneficiaries and that the beneficiaries were entitled to have the administration accounted for.
The court upheld the order requiring the titles forming part of the deceased's estate but registered in Rukidi's name to be identified and cancelled.
The Administrator General was directed to make an inventory of the affected titles and apply to the Registrar of Titles to cancel them and substitute Rukidi's name with that of Prince Enock Kiiza Gabigogo.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, subject to the additional order concerning the titles.
Because the parties are members of the same family, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.