Court stated that the Plaintiffs as administrators
and beneficiaries to the estate of the late Moses
Mulyanti were clothed with power to oversee the
estate of the late Moses Mulyanti, including
bonafide or lawful occupancy, if at all they
subsisted. Prima facie therefore, the Plaintiffs
capacity and the nature of their claim clearly
establishes a cause of action, hence locus standi
to institute and prosecute this suit.
Court held that according to Section 3 of the
Succession Act it is apparent that Medina and
Nakato Yudaya do not qualify as dependants
because Medina is not in any way a daughter to
the late Moses Mulyanti and Nakato was not a wife
of the deceased. Much as Madina was allegedly
born and raised at the home of the late Moses
Mulyanti, she had her own biological father in the
person of a one Kiwanuka. She is therefore not of

the Mulyanti lineage but lineal descendant of
Kiwanuka. There is no evidence to prove that the
said Madina had been adopted by the late Moses
in a manner recognized as lawful by the law of
Uganda. Accordingly there is no way she can
assume to be a beneficiary merely because she
was raised by her mother who was cohabiting with
the deceased.

Court on the issue of boananfide occupancy stated
that the right to bonafide occupancy must be
actual or real. It must be based on unchallenged
right. The right which is not capable of being
challenged does not bestow bonafide occupancy.
In the instant case the late Bataringaya bought the
suit property from Besweri Mulyanti who was the
father of Moses Mulyanti. In 1970 Moses Mulyanti
attempted to challenge Bataringaya’s ownership of
the suit property without success. After conceding
defeat Moses Mulyanti approached the late
Bataringaya to buy back the suit property but the
request was turned down. In that case although
the late Moses Mulyanti continued staying on the
suit property, the Bataringaya family had no duty to
levy any further claim on the suit property which
was already theirs or to formally question the
legality of the occupation of Moses Mulyanti whom
they knew had dropped any hope of regaining
ownership of the suit property and whom they were
considering as a mere caretaker. In deed it was
the Defendants’ evidence that when they wanted
to develop the suit property they informed Moses
Mulyanti who requested to be given time to vacate