Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

John Lwehabura v. Edward Lwehanura, (PC) Civ. App. 74-M-68, Seaton J.



John Lwehabura v. Edward Lwehanura, (PC) Civ. App. 74-M-68, Seaton J.

At issue is the validity of a will which purports to disinherit the eldest son of the testator. It was alleged that the testator disinherited the son, plaintiff, because the latter beat the former and had not apologized according to Haya customary law. The testator then disinherited the plaintiff in his will, which he signed and which was attested by two witnesses. It was not established whether the testator’s wife or any of the testator’s kin witnessed the will as required by law.

            Held: (1) The alleged will was invalid and insufficiently proved. [Citing ss. 3-5 of the Law of Wills, G. N. 436/63, which provide that written wills must be attested by proper witnesses who must include testator’s wife or wives if at home]. (2) Under section 19, two witnesses are required, on of them being a kinsmen and the other unrelated to the testator, if the testator is literate. (3) Property should devolve according to the Law of Inheritance, G. N. 436 of 1963. Appeal allowed. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments