The High Court has thrown out a counterclaim in a commercial dispute involving money, property abroad, and the estate of Hajj Musa Sewava, a deceased businessman who founded Sir Apollo Schools in Uganda.
Sewava’s son, Habib Namakajjo, had sued one of the wives of the late businessman, Madina Nakitto, after they disagreed on how to share rental income from the businessman’s properties in South Africa.
The ruling, by Justice Dr Ginamia Melody Ngwatu, brings into focus a complex dispute that started after the death of Hajj Sewava, an educationist who left a mark on Uganda’s education landscape.
Nakitto was the widow of the late Hajji Sewava, and after his death on December 15, 2022, she was appointed executor of his estate in South Africa.
As executor, she was legally responsible for managing and distributing his assets, including a property located at 417 Jasmyn Street in Silverton, Pretoria.
Namakajjo, the respondent in the case, was one of the beneficiaries of this estate. The court heard that he was entitled to a share of rental income from the South African property, alongside other beneficiaries.
The dispute began when Nakitto sued Namakajjo in 2024, accusing him of seizing Shs 60 million from her. She asked the court to order him to return the money, pay damages, and cover legal costs.
In response, Namakajjo filed a defence and a counterclaim in which he accused Nakitto of failing to pay him his share of rent collected from the South African property. He also claimed damages for loss of business, interest, and costs.
He argued that although the property was in South Africa, the dispute over rent could be handled in Uganda because Nakitto lives and works here.
Namakajjo added that the issue was not about ownership of the property, but about money owed to him.
Nakitto strongly disagreed with this position and, through her lawyers, Engoru, Mutebi Advocates, she asked the court to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that Ugandan courts had no jurisdiction over matters concerning property and estate administration in another country.
Her lawyers told the court that the property in question is governed by South African law and forms part of an estate being administered under that country’s legal system.
They argued that any complaint about rent or how the estate is being managed should be taken to the South African authorities.
“If the respondent [Namakajjo] claimed any rent arrears, he or she would have to seek redress in accordance with South Africa’s Administration of Estates Act,” her lawyers submitted.
They also stressed that Nakitto was acting under legal authority granted by a South African court, which issued her letters of executorship.
On the other hand, Namakajjo’s lawyers from Crane Associated Advocates argued that Ugandan courts have wide powers and could hear the case because the dispute involved payment of money and the person being sued lives in Uganda.
They relied on the Civil Procedure Act, saying a case can be filed where the defendant [Nakitto] resides or where the dispute arose.
They told the court that Nakitto had already paid other beneficiaries from Uganda, which showed that the transactions were not limited to South Africa.
“The applicant has also made payments of rent… in Uganda,” they argued.
They further insisted that rent is movable property, meaning it can be claimed in a different country from where the property is located.
She sued FIA for freezing her account in Centenary Bank. Judge sided with FIA
The judgereading. She
However, Justice Ngwatu disagreed with this argument.
In her ruling, she emphasised that jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement in any case.
“Jurisdiction is the first test in the legal authority of a court, and its absence disqualifies the court from exercising any of its powers,” she said.
She noted that while Ugandan courts have broad powers, those powers must be exercised within the limits set by law.
Justice Ngwatu carefully examined whether the claim for rent could be separated from the property itself and concluded that it could not.
“Rent is a benefit arising out of the use of immovable property and as such the two are inextricably linked,” she ruled.
She also found that the dispute was closely tied to Nakitto’s role as executor of the estate of the late Musa Sewava.
Because of this, the court ruled that it had no authority to hear the counterclaim.
“The proper forum for the determination of the issues raised therein is the High Court of South Africa,” she ruled.
She then dismissed the counterclaim with costs, meaning Namakajjo will have to pay legal expenses related to that part of the case.
However, Justice Ngwatu also made another important decision.
She observed that Nakitto’s original case against Namakajjo, where she is seeking to recover Shs60 million, does not fall under the Commercial Division.
As a result, she ordered that the main case be transferred to the Civil Division for further hearing.
This means that while Namakajjo’s counterclaim has been dismissed, the fight between the two parties is not yet over.
The case over the Shs 60 million rent dispute will continue in a different court.
