History repeats itself !
The reigning Bunyoro king was Sir Tito Gafabusa Winyi IV.
On 22 October 1962, shortly before Uganda’s independence, King Tito formally nominated his son, Prince Solomon Iguru, as his successor in a written document. The nomination was based on the succession rules applicable to Bunyoro, including the rules contained in the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution of Uganda.
King Tito died in 1971, but the succession did not immediately result in Solomon being formally crowned king because Uganda’s traditional kingdoms were abolished in 1967.
This became important later because another son, Prince J. D. C. Mpuga Rukidi, challenged Solomon’s right to the throne.
What was Prince Mpuga’s argument?
Mpuga claimed, among other things, that he-not Solomon-was the rightful successor.
His arguments included,
He was the first son of King Tito’s legally wedded wife.
He claimed Bunyoro custom required the successor to come from the king’s legally wedded wife.
He had allegedly been publicly proclaimed heir when he was born and had been treated as Crown Prince. He challenged Solomon’s legitimacy on grounds concerning Solomon’s mother and her relationship to King Tito.
Essentially, he argued that Solomon could not displace him merely through the alleged nomination.
What did Solomon rely upon?
Solomon relied heavily on the written nomination made by King Tito on 22 October 1962.
There was also evidence that after Tito’s death:
Solomon was treated as the designated heir;
customary succession rites were performed;
he was recognised as successor by Banyoro and various organisations;
in 1973, the Administrator General obtained Letters of Administration with King Tito’s will attached.
This became the central legal question;
Could a king’s legally made nomination of his successor continue to have effect even after the monarchy itself had been abolished?
The High Court decision in 1994
The case eventually came before the High Court of Uganda at Kampala in H.C.C.S. No. 804 of 1993.
Justice Tinyinondi ruled in favour of Prince Solomon Iguru.
The court found that the nomination was valid and that Solomon qualified to succeed King Tito.
One particularly important point was the interpretation of the phrase Royal line ,in the succession provisions.
The court concluded that, in the case of Bunyoro, the royal family was not restricted to sons of a particular wife. The expression could include the king’s sons generally. This was different from the succession arrangements applicable to some other Ugandan kingdoms.
The abolition of kingdoms became a major issue
The most important part of the argument was abolition of kingdoms.
The argument was made that because the kingdoms had been abolished in 1967, any right to succeed to the Bunyoro throne had effectively disappeared.
The court rejected that argument.
It held that the right to be heir and succeed to the throne was an acquired right that survived the abolition of the kingdom.
And, importantly, even if the right had somehow been extinguished by abolition, the 1993 constitutional restoration of traditional institutions restored the relevant rights.
The case reached the Supreme Court in 1996
Mpuga appealed.
The matter became;
Prince J. D. C. Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Iguru & Others, Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994.
The Supreme Court of Uganda, in a judgment delivered on 17 May 1996, dismissed Mpuga’s appeal and upheld the position that Prince Solomon Iguru had been validly nominated by the late Omukama and was entitled to succeed him.
The Supreme Court was particularly clear that the nomination complied with the law and customary rules applicable to Bunyoro.
Why the case is extremely important today
The Supreme Court made an observation that is particularly relevant to succession disputes involving Ugandan kingdoms.
Justice Odoki described the case as one that,
settled the question of succession to the throne of Bunyoro-Kitara
and said that it therefore paved the way for restoration of the institution of the traditional ruler in Bunyoro-Kitara.
The court also recognised that this was a matter of great public importance, and because the litigation had settled the succession question, it stressed the need for reconciliation among the contestants for the good of the kingdom.
The key legal principle
In simplified terms, the Bunyoro case established an important proposition:
A valid nomination of a successor by a reigning king can have legal significance, and the abolition of a traditional kingdom does not necessarily destroy an already-acquired succession right-particularly where the constitutional framework later restores the traditional institution.
That is why this case could be highly relevant to the present Tooro succession debate, especially if the argument concerns a written will or nomination made by a reigning Omukama before his death.
The above opinion was written by Barnabas Taremwa Bwaniaga -SGC
