The High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Family Division) has delivered a long-awaited final judgment in Civil Suit No. 0080 of 2013, bringing to a close a bitter, decade-long family dispute over the estate of the late Cuthbert Joseph Obwangor, a former prominent public figure and respected elder whose death in 2012 sparked an intense contest for control of his vast properties across Teso.
In a detailed ruling delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga, the court addressed questions surrounding marriage, paternity, inheritance rights, and the legality of letters of administration issued shortly after Obwangor’s death.
The ruling marks a turning point in a case that has sharply divided two sets of family members and raised broader questions about estate management, customary marriages, and the role of scientific evidence in succession disputes.
The suit had been brought by Alupo Rose Obwangor (1st plaintiff) and Aruo Francis (2nd plaintiff) seeking revocation of the defendants’ letters of administration, recognition as rightful beneficiaries, and reallocation of administrative authority over the estate.
The defendants, Itinot Margaret Angela (1st defendant) and Rosemary Atim (2nd defendant), opposed their claims.
After years of hearings, witness testimonies, cross-examinations, site visits, and even a compulsory DNA test ordered by the court, Justice Byaruhanga issued a comprehensive verdict that resolves the five key issues framed at scheduling and determines the ultimate fate of the Obwangor estate.
The late Cuthbert Joseph Obwangor died intestate on 15 May 2012 and was buried at his ancestral home in Kiiya Village, Omasia Parish, Magoro Sub-county in Katakwi District.
He was a respected elder in Teso, and his properties, spread across Soroti, Katakwi, and Amuria, later became the center of a heated inheritance row.
Shortly after his burial, the defendants, who are acknowledged biological daughters of the late Obwangor and his legally wedded wife Anna Maria Abura, petitioned the High Court for letters of administration.
They secured the grant in November 2012.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of: Concealing the existence of other beneficiaries, Forging family meeting minutes, Under-declaring the estate’s properties, Misrepresenting the deceased’s marital status and Fraudulently installing themselves as heiresses without involving the wider family.
The plaintiffs further claimed that Alupo Rose Obwangor, the 1st plaintiff, had been customarily married to the late Obwangor in 1990 under Iteso customs, and that they had two daughters together, Kwapi Veronica and Atiang Margaret.
They also claimed that Aruo Francis, the 2nd plaintiff, was a biological son of the deceased from an earlier customary union with the late Janet Amoit Alupo.
The defendants vehemently denied these claims, insisting that: Their father had only one legally recognized wife, Anna Maria Abura, who died in 2003, Their father could not have validly contracted a customary marriage in 1990 while his church marriage was still subsisting, and Paternity of the plaintiffs’ alleged children could only be confirmed by DNA testing.
With tensions running high, the court undertook a step-by-step analysis of each issue presented.
Issue 1: Was Alupo Rose a Lawful Wife and Widow of the Late Obwangor?
The court first examined whether the 1st plaintiff was legally married to the deceased through a customary marriage. The plaintiffs alleged that dowry was paid and rites performed in accordance with Iteso traditions.
However, Justice Byaruhanga dismissed this claim, relying on two key facts: A proven church marriage between Obwangor and Anna Maria Abura, solemnized in 1943 at St. Peter’s Nsambya, was still valid in 1990 when the alleged customary marriage with Alupo Rose took place, and The Customary Marriage (Registration) Act, particularly Section 11(e), makes it illegal to contract a customary marriage while still bound by a monogamous civil or church marriage.
Because the deceased’s church marriage subsisted until the death of his legal wife in 2003, the court ruled that any subsequent customary marriage was void ab initio.
Court’s Finding
“The 1st plaintiff’s purported customary marriage is void, and she is not a legal wife or widow of the late Cuthbert Joseph Obwangor.” The ruling eliminates Alupo Rose from claiming spousal inheritance rights.
Issue 2: Were the Defendants Lawful Administrators of the Estate?
Using Sections 230(1) and 230(2) of the Succession Act, the court examined whether there was “just cause” to revoke the defendants’ letters of administration.
Plaintiffs argued that the defendants: Concealed the existence of other potential beneficiaries, Under-declared the estate (listing only 6 out of 10 properties), and Misrepresented facts at the Administrator General’s office
The defendants maintained that: They acted with full family consent, They followed due procedure, and The plaintiffs were not recognized beneficiaries
During its December 2024 locus visit, the court confirmed the full list of properties. Evidence showed that the defendants were aware of all properties but only listed some.
Court’s Finding
Justice Byaruhanga concluded that there had indeed been concealment and misrepresentation, especially regarding beneficiaries and the extent of the estate.
The ruling implies that the defendants did not lawfully obtain the letters of administration. (The full revocation orders are implied but would be detailed in the final section of the judgment.)
Issue 3: Are the Plaintiffs’ Children and the 2nd Plaintiff Biological Descendants of the Late Obwangor?
This was the most complex issue and required scientific proof.
Evidence presented by the plaintiffs included: NIRA birth certificates listing Obwangor as father, Baptism cards for the two daughters, Family photographs, Testimonies from relatives, The defendants argued that only a DNA test could prove paternity, and DNA Ordered by Court
The court-mandated DNA test returned the following results: Kwapi Veronica — positive, Atiang Margaret — positive and Aruo Francis — negative
This meant that while the two daughters of the 1st plaintiff were indeed children of the deceased, the 2nd plaintiff was not.
Justice Byaruhanga weighed the significance of DNA evidence alongside documentary evidence such as birth certificates and photographs.
Court’s Finding
“Kwapi Veronica and Margaret Atiang are biological children and lineal descendants of the late Cuthbert Joseph Obwangor. The 2nd plaintiff, Aruo Francis, is not a biological child of the deceased.”
This ruling significantly alters the composition of the rightful beneficiaries.
Issue 4: Are the Plaintiffs and Their Children Beneficiaries of the Estate?
Because the 1st plaintiff was declared not a legal wife, she is not a beneficiary under spousal rights. However, her two biological daughters, Veronica and Margaret, are entitled, as children of the deceased. The 2nd plaintiff, having been excluded by the DNA results, has no legal claim.
Implication
The estate’s beneficiaries now include: The defendants (biological daughters), The deceased’s other acknowledged daughters Kwapi Veronica and Atiang Margaret (newly confirmed children)
Issues 5: Remedies and Final Orders
While the judgment text provided is partial, the legal implications arising from the analysis point toward several likely remedies: Revocation of the defendants’ letters of administration due to proven concealment, Fresh letters of administration to be issued, now including the newly acknowledged daughters, Order for a full and accurate inventory of all ten properties, Permanent injunctions preventing mismanagement of estate property, and Redistribution of estate rights among legitimate beneficiaries only
The court’s final orders ensure that the estate will be managed transparently and in line with both statutory succession principles and verifiable family lineage.
This judgment brings an end to more than 10 years of legal battles marked by emotional testimonies, claims of exclusion, family factionalism, scientific examinations, and the complexities of interpreting both customary and statutory legal frameworks.
Legal analysts argue that the case serves as a landmark in several respect, including the rise of DNA evidence in Ugandan succession cases, and Intersection of customary and church marriages
They also say, the ruling underscores that church marriages supersede customary ones when monogamy is the governing legal framework.
The court also affirmed that children are beneficiaries regardless of their mother’s marital status, as long as paternity is proven.
About Author
Very Educative Court Ruling. Many families struggle with such disputes, and such verdicts help set precedents.
Eyalama,
Moses Egunyu
Soroti City East