A High Court judge has been sued before the High Court Family Division in Kampala over alleged irregularities in the processing and administration of the estates of two deceased family members.
The suit has been filed by Bunny Wallia and Ahluwalia Jaspal against the Administrator General of Uganda, High Court Judge Deepa Verma and Jassa Wallia.
According to the plaint filed in the High Court, the plaintiffs claim to have a legitimate interest in the estates of the late Zura Mama Kasuku and the late Ahluwalia Gudo and are challenging the circumstances under which Certificates of No Objection were issued to Verma and Jassa Wallia.
The plaintiffs allege that on June 12, 2026, the two defendants participated in the opening and processing of files relating to the two estates at the Office of the Administrator General.
They claim that on the same day, a purported family meeting was conducted concerning the estates but was attended by only four people.
The plaintiffs contend that they were neither invited to nor notified about the meeting, alongside other family members and people they say have legitimate interests in the estates.
According to the plaint, the purported family meeting was not representative of the wider family and beneficiaries and therefore could not fairly determine who was entitled to administer the estates without considering the interests of other beneficiaries.
Three days later, on June 15, 2026, the Administrator General allegedly issued Certificates of No Objection in favour of Verma and Jassa Wallia for the two estates.
The plaintiffs argue that the speed with which the certificates were issued raises questions about whether all relevant information and interests were properly considered.
They want the court to scrutinise, among other things, whether all known family members and beneficiaries were identified, whether the plaintiffs were notified of the family meeting, whether the meeting was properly convened and whether all relevant information concerning the beneficiaries and estate property was disclosed.
The plaintiffs have also raised concerns over Justice Verma’s status as a serving judicial officer, saying her involvement in seeking administration of the family estates raises questions about transparency, propriety, disclosure and the appearance of a conflict of interest.
They, however, state that the suit is not intended to interfere with judicial independence or prejudge any matter pending before another judicial officer.
The plaintiffs want the court to establish whether Verma’s judicial status was disclosed during the processing of the estates and whether any official position, influence or prestige was used, directly or indirectly, to obtain the Certificates of No Objection.
They also allege that they only became aware of subsequent administration proceedings after notices concerning the estates were published in the New Vision newspaper on July 10, 2026.
The two defendants subsequently commenced Administration Causes 599 and 600 of 2026 concerning the estates of Gudo and Kasuku respectively.
The plaintiffs fear that the estates could be administered without the participation of lawful beneficiaries and that property not belonging to the deceased persons could be treated as estate property.
They are asking the court to set aside or quash the Certificates of No Objection, preserve the estates and order a fresh process for identifying beneficiaries and persons entitled to administer them.
They also seek an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, charging, disposing of or otherwise dealing with property forming part of the estates pending lawful administration.
The plaintiffs are further seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest and costs of the suit.
The value of the subject matter has been stated in the plaint as exceeding Shs210 million.
The summons, issued on August 21, 2026, requires the defendants to file their defence within 15 days of being served.
The summons warns that failure to file a defence may result in the plaintiffs proceeding with the suit and judgment being entered in their absence.