The Court of Appeal of Uganda has removed veteran businessman Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka from direct management of his extensive business interests, citing medical evidence indicating that the 83-year-old entrepreneur is no longer mentally fit to oversee his affairs.
In a ruling delivered this week, the appellate court handed temporary authority over the family’s businesses to Kiwanuka’s son, Jordan Sebuliba Kiwanuka, while directing the family to agree on a substantive manager within 30 days.
The decision overturns an earlier ruling by the High Court of Uganda that had allowed Kiwanuka to continue running his businesses despite concerns about his mental capacity.
“This temporary arrangement is intended to allow the family time to create a unified and sustainable structure for running their businesses,” the court stated.
It added that, based on the medical records presented, the appellant had demonstrated “sufficient grounds for concern regarding Mr Kiwanuka’s mental capacity.”
Family meeting ordered
Under the court directive, Sebuliba must convene a family meeting to determine who will manage the estate on a long-term basis. Should the family fail to reach consensus within the stipulated period, the court indicated it would appoint a manager.
The ruling is the latest development in a prolonged family and legal dispute over control of Kiwanuka’s wealth, a conflict that first reached the courts in 2019 when Sebuliba questioned his father’s cognitive health.
At stake is a sprawling business empire comprising at least 32 companies and more than 46 prime properties located in upscale areas including Kololo and Nakasero in Kampala.
Kiwanuka, the chief executive of Oscar Industries Limited, has built a reputation over decades as one of Uganda’s most prominent private investors, with business interests in real estate, hospitality and energy.
The appellate decision follows a February 12 ruling by a registrar at the High Court that formally declared Kiwanuka mentally unstable. The determination came after a key admission by his long-time lawyer and company secretary, Francis Buwule.
“During the said hearing, counsel for Mr Kiwanuka admitted he is insane,” Buwule told the Court of Appeal.
The case has also exposed deep divisions within the Kiwanuka family, involving children from two marriages and other relatives who have disagreed over both access to the businessman and the management of his wealth.
Some of the children, alongside paternal aunts, accused Kiwanuka’s wife, Maria Kiwanuka, a former finance minister, and her son Edin Musisi of using powers of attorney to transfer or dispose of family property while the tycoon was allegedly no longer capable of making sound decisions.
Earlier ruling revisited
The matter was revisited after intervention by Flavian Zeija, then Principal Judge and now Deputy Chief Justice, who questioned a 2019 decision by Justice Musa Ssekaana that had declared Kiwanuka mentally competent.
In a January 31 ruling, Zeija observed that mental capacity can deteriorate over time and should be reassessed when new evidence emerges.
“Mental status is a condition that can change rapidly. Someone who is sane today may be insane tomorrow,” he ruled.
Medical testimony presented in court supported that view.
Dr Simon Sekiganda Luzige, who has treated Kiwanuka since 2014, said the businessman’s condition had worsened over the years.
“Over time, he became increasingly forgetful and exhibited a significant personality change,” the doctor said in an affidavit.
Geriatric specialist Harriet Nankabirwa also confirmed concerns about the tycoon’s mental state, adding that she had previously discussed the need for trustees to help manage his affairs.
Following the High Court ruling in February, Kiwanuka’s children were granted immediate access to him after earlier disputes over family contact.
The latest appellate decision is widely viewed by legal observers as an opportunity for the family to resolve their differences and agree on a management structure for one of Uganda’s most valuable privately held business portfolios.
However, the court left the door open for further intervention if the family fails to reach agreement within the specified timeframe.
