Court sets date for Kitgum House fight judgment
Setting the date for the judgment follows an application by three applicants challenging interim orders issued by Justice of Appeal Esta Nambayo on September 22, 2026, concerning the administration and preservation of Opoka's estate.
The late's children, Geraldine Opoka and Pamella Opoka. (Credit: Barbra Kabahumuza)
KAMPALA - The Court of Appeal will deliver its judgment on November 30, 2026, in a dispute over the administration of the estate of the late Francisco Obuli Opoka, involving Kitgum House and another residential house in Muyenga, Kampala.
Setting the date for the judgment follows an application by three applicants challenging interim orders issued by Justice of Appeal Esta Nambayo on September 22, 2026, concerning the administration and preservation of Opoka's estate.
The matter was heard on October 27, 2026, by a panel of justices comprising Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kawumi Kazibwe, Justice Margaret Tibulya and Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti.
The applicants, Charles Otema Opoka, Margaret Ayera Opoka and Lucy Adong Opoka Lwabi, want the court to reconsider and set aside Justice Nambayo’s ruling.
The reference arises from Civil Application Number 1049 of 2026, which originated from High Court Miscellaneous Applications; Number 2804 of 2026, Number 8201 of 2025 and Probate and Administration Cause Number 226 of 1992.
During the hearing, the applicants’ lawyer, Georgina Matama Musisi, asked the court to set timelines for filing written submissions and rejoinders.
Matama said the applicants had filed Civil Appeal Number COA-00-CA-CA-0416-2026 on September 1, 2026, while the respondent, Geraldine Akello Opoka, lodged her notice of appeal on September 2, 2026.
The lawyer asked the panel to consider the reference alongside the pending appeal, which concerns the administration of the estate.
Matama argued that Justice Nambayo’s ruling affected arrangements previously established by the High Court and directed the parties to seek the appointment of an administrator pendente lite, a temporary administrator appointed to manage an estate while litigation is pending.
She asked the court to set aside the ruling and maintain the safeguards previously ordered by the High Court.
However, the respondent’s lawyer, Mariam Mbabaali of Kabuzire, Mbabaali & Co. Advocates, opposed the application, arguing that Justice Nambayo had issued interim orders to preserve the estate without finally determining the parties’ rights.
Mbabaali submitted that proceedings concerning the appointment of an administrator pendente lite could continue independently of the reference.
The justices sought clarification from the lawyers about the existing arrangements for the estate, whether an administrator was in place, and how the property would be managed while the cases remained pending.
In her grounds of opposition, the respondent challenged the competence of the reference, arguing that the applicants must establish that it was properly filed under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act and Rule 55 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions.
She also argued that the reference cannot be used to introduce evidence or matters that were not before the single Justice of Appeal.
The respondent maintained that Justice Nambayo acted within her jurisdiction in granting interim orders and asked the Court of Appeal to dismiss the reference with costs
The applicants contended that Justice Nambayo acted without jurisdiction when she issued the contested orders.
They argued that the respondent had not established an arguable appeal and that there was no evidence that a similar application for a stay of execution had been heard and rejected by the High Court.
According to the applicants, the High Court, in a ruling delivered by Justice Celia Nagawa on September 1, 2026, stayed the execution of an earlier order pending determination of their appeal.
They said Justice Nagawa restored the position that existed before probate was granted to persons other than those named in the deceased’s last Will, and imposed safeguards for the estate’s preservation.
They also challenged the reliance on section 214 of the Succession Act, arguing that the provision does not apply to the respondent’s intended appeal.
The applicants further argued that there was no evidence of mismanagement, waste, concealment or an imminent threat to the estate to justify the interim orders.
They maintained that rental income from the estate is deposited into an account at Stanbic Bank and that the relevant records have been preserved.
The applicants oppose the possible appointment of the respondent as the administrator pendente lite, arguing that she is involved in litigation against them over the estate.
They want the Court of Appeal to set aside Justice Nambayo’s ruling, restore the safeguards imposed by the High Court and prevent the appointment of the respondent as administrator before determination of their appeal.
They have also asked the court to make further orders concerning the proceedings and direct that the costs of the reference abide by the outcome of the pending appeal.
The reference was filed on September 28, 2026, by Geena Rose Associated Advocates LLP on behalf of the three applicants.
On October 5, 2026, the firm wrote to the Court Administrator requesting expeditious handling of the matter.
The applicants’ lawyers argued that an early determination would avoid multiple proceedings and preserve the subject matter of the pending appeal.
The respondent is represented by Kabuzire, Mbabaali and Company Advocates.
The court directed each party to file written submissions within seven working days, with rejoinders due by November 16, 2026. The judgment is scheduled for November 30, 2026.