By Nomad Advocates
The High Court in Uganda dismissed an application in the matter of Rodgers Matifari Obata v. Wakesa Patrick (Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2024) where the Applicant sought orders that the judgment and decree delivered by the High Court of Kenya Holden at Bugoma vide Succession Cause No. 195 of 2014, be registered and enforced by the Ugandan Courts. The matter concerned the redistribution of the deceased’s estate (land in Uganda) among the beneficiaries.
At the hearing, the Applicant’s lawyer cited section 3(1) of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 9 [Cap 10] and Rule 4 of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules SI, 9-1 and argued that those provisions allow the Applicant to apply to the court to enforce and register the Kenyan judgment. Section 2 of the Foreign (Reciprocal Enforcement (General Application Order 35/2002 was also cited, which states that part of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act shall apply to the territories of the Commonwealth and to judgments obtained in the courts of those territories as it does to foreign countries.
The case of ABSA Bank Uganda Ltd V. UCHUMA (Civil Case 316 of 2021) was also cited for the proposition that where a foreign court has
adjudicated upon a claim and issued a valid judgment, its legal obligation arises to satisfy that claim in a country where the judgment needs to be enforced. Such recognition is accorded not as an act of courtesy but on consideration of the basic principle of justice and good conscience.
On the other hand, the Application was opposed by the Respondent on the points of law that the High Court in Kenya has no jurisdiction over land which is in Uganda, and such a judgment cannot be enforced in Uganda. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Applicant has no locus to sue basing on the letters of administration that have not been resealed by the High Court in Uganda.
The main issue for the court’s determination was whether the applicant had locus standi to institute the application.
The court relied on Section 2 of the Probates (Resealing) Act Cap 266, which provides that- “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.”
The court found that the letters of administration were never resealed in Uganda, hence unenforceable. It was further observed that the letters of administration were issued to two administrators; hence, the institution of any suit should have been by both administrators jointly. it was therefore held that the Applicant had no locus to institute the suit.
It was further held that since the part of the judgment which the Applicant seeks to enforce could not be executed in Kenya, the same cannot be registered in Uganda as per section 3 (1) (b) cited above. Uganda enforces only those judgments that are valid, subsisting, and executable in their home jurisdictions and declines to enforce judgments that the foreign legal system itself would not enforce. In the case of Volcano Holding Ltd V. All African Logistic Solutions (Miscellaneous Cause No. 230 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 112 (27 July 2022), Justice Ssekana noted that- “Registration is a matter of discretion. The court may order the judgment to be registered if it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to do so.”
The Application was therefore dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Respondent for lack of locus standi by the Applicant for the principle that joint administrators must act jointly and because registration of a foreign judgment requires the judgment to be executable in the origin country.