For nearly a month, a family dispute surrounding the estate of the late businessman Moses Kaliisa Kalangwa has increasingly played out on social media, with some of his children making a series of accusations against the official wife, who also doubles as their stepmother, Florence Joyce Kirabo.
The accusations are serious. They include claims that Kirabo has denied some of the children school fees, taken control of their late father’s estate, sold the family’s livestock, interfered with their father’s will, prevented some of them from accessing their father’s home and sided with the family’s lawyer at the expense of the children.
But as the dispute continues to attract public attention, an examination of Kalangwa’s Last Will and Testament, together with inquiries made by this publication, presents a more complicated picture than the one emerging from social media.
The will, signed in August 2023, contains detailed instructions on how Kalangwa wanted his property administered and distributed after his death. It identifies his children, names his wife, appoints an heir and executors, provides for the education of his children and dependents, and sets out procedures for resolving disputes concerning the interpretation or implementation of the document.
Some of the claims circulating publicly therefore require to be considered against what Kalangwa himself wrote in the document he left behind.
In the document, Kalangwa expressly identifies his children and states that they are the only children he had. The names supplied from the will are Jackline Birungi Kobusingye, Emmanuel Kamugisha, Michael Ezera Karuhanga, Eria Muhozi, Moses Kaliisa, Angel Nina, Antonio Kamusiime, Hanisa Kemigisha, Saidi Karangwa and Sarah Mwebaze.
More importantly, Kalangwa expressly stated that he was making the will voluntarily and understood what he was doing. He declared himself to be of sound mind and said he was not acting under duress or undue influence.
Contrary to the impression that may be created by some of the social media accusations, Kirabo is expressly mentioned in the will. Kalangwa identified Florence Joyce Kirabo as his wife, stating that they were married customarily and that he intended to convert their marriage into a church marriage.
He subsequently appointed Kirabo among the people entrusted with the administration of his estate. The will names Kirabo, Emmanuel Kamugisha and Michael Ezera Karuhanga as legal representatives, with the document describing them as executrix and executors of his estate and will respectively.
This means that, on the face of the document, Kirabo’s involvement in the administration of the estate was not something she assumed after Kalangwa’s death. It was a responsibility assigned to her by Kalangwa himself.
Kalangwa appointed Emmanuel Kamugisha as the heir and provided that, in the event of Kamugisha’s death, Eria Muhooza would take his place as heir.
The distinction between an heir, a beneficiary and an executor is important in understanding the dispute. The will does not simply leave the entire estate to one person and exclude everyone else. Instead, it makes specific provisions for different beneficiaries and properties while assigning particular responsibilities to the people charged with administering the estate.
Some of the children have also accused their stepmother of working with the family’s lawyer to keep them away from their father’s estate. However, the will itself anticipated the possibility of disagreements over its interpretation.
Kalangwa specifically named his friend, Robert Okalang of Okalang Law Chambers in Jinja, as the sole arbitrator in the event of a dispute or disagreement concerning the interpretation of any provision of the will.
The executors and executrix were instructed to seek his guidance whenever clarification was required in executing the will. Kalangwa further provided that if Okalang was unavailable, a lawyer from his law firm would perform that role.
The clause is particularly relevant to the allegations surrounding the family’s lawyer because the involvement of Okalang or his law firm in questions concerning the interpretation or execution of the will was expressly contemplated by Kalangwa himself.
That, however, does not by itself resolve any dispute over whether the will has been properly administered. Any allegation of misconduct, conflict of interest or breach of duty would still require evidence and, where necessary, determination by the appropriate authorities or court.
The social media accusations portray Kirabo as having taken control of virtually everything left behind by Kalangwa. But the will contains a detailed scheme for the administration and distribution of his property.
Kalangwa stated that he had acquired several properties during his lifetime and that some had been registered in the names of companies while others had been registered in the names of people he described as his loved ones. He further stated that the necessary transfer documents had been executed in relation to the properties.
He then proceeded to distribute his property through the will, with a list of about 23 properties identified in the document.
Kalangwa wrote that he was devising and bequeathing his property, both real and personal, wherever situated. The document therefore did not leave the administration of his estate without instructions. Instead, it attempted to determine who would receive particular properties and how some of those properties should be managed.
One of the most important provisions concerns the sale or disposal of property. Kalangwa stated that properties given to four persons in trust were not to be sold during the periods he specified. Income generated from those properties was to be used strictly to educate his children and dependents.
The trustees were also given responsibilities relating to claims made for or against the estate. This provision is significant in understanding the accusations that property has been taken over or sold because the document appears to distinguish between ownership, trusteeship and the responsibility to use income from certain properties for the welfare and education of the children.
Education was specifically provided for in Kalangwa’s will. He directed that income from certain properties placed in trust should be used strictly to educate his children and dependents.
One of the most repeated accusations against Kirabo is that some of the children have been denied school fees. However, checks by this publication at schools attended by some of the children found that fees had been paid, with the relevant accounts showing zero balances at the time of the checks.
That finding does not settle every question concerning the children’s welfare or whether there have been disagreements over fees at other times. It does, however, challenge the broad impression that the children have simply been abandoned without school fees.
Another accusation concerns the alleged sale of the family’s entire herd of animals. Information gathered by this publication indicates that the livestock in question was being moved from disputed land to another location for safety.
That account differs significantly from the allegation that the animals were simply sold off as part of an attempt to strip the children of their inheritance. The circumstances surrounding the movement and ownership of the livestock may nevertheless require further documentation if the parties continue to contest the matter.
Some of the children have also alleged that they have been denied access to their father’s home. However, a security officer familiar with the premises told this publication on condition of anonymity that none of the children had attempted to knock at the gate seeking access and had subsequently been turned away.
Another important aspect of the dispute concerns the original will. None of the family members is understood to be holding the original copy of the document. The original is reportedly in the custody of a former high-profile judicial officer who was entrusted with it.
This is important because the authenticity, execution and proper custody of an original will can become critical whenever beneficiaries disagree over its contents or administration.
Kalangwa’s will, also anticipated disagreements among beneficiaries. He instructed those holding property in trust to act in the best interests of everyone and directed the executors and executrix to ensure fairness in the sharing process.
He provided that children below the age of 25 were not permitted to sell their respective properties. He also made provisions for what would happen to property jointly given to beneficiaries if one of them died.
Where property was given jointly, he provided that it would belong to the surviving beneficiaries unless the deceased beneficiary had biological children, who would inherit that beneficiary’s share.
For property given solely to a beneficiary, he made similar provisions concerning the beneficiary’s biological children. He further stated that any property not specifically provided for in the will would belong to his heir.
Kalangwa also made a declaration concerning debts. He stated that, as at the date of execution of the will, he owed no debt to any person or institution and warned that no one should subsequently come forward claiming an interest in his estate except as provided for in the will.
Perhaps the strongest provision in the document concerns beneficiaries who challenge it. Kalangwa stated that if any beneficiary contested or attacked the will or any of its provisions, the share or interest given to that beneficiary would be revoked and dealt with as though that beneficiary had died before him.
He also stated that no beneficiary should claim another or alternative property if the property allocated to them had already been sold by him during his lifetime.
These provisions help explain why simply reading social media accusations without examining the will can produce a misleading picture of the dispute.
The will was not merely a list of people receiving property. It contained conditions, restrictions, responsibilities and procedures intended to govern how the estate would be administered.
The dispute surrounding Kalangwa’s estate illustrates one of the most difficult periods many families face: what happens after the death of the person who accumulated the property.
At that point, disagreements can quickly turn into accusations, particularly where beneficiaries have different expectations about what they believe they were promised during the deceased’s lifetime.
A properly prepared will is intended to reduce that uncertainty by documenting the deceased person’s wishes. In Uganda, succession is governed by legislation that provides a framework for administering estates and determining the rights of spouses, children, dependents and other beneficiaries.
A valid will gives a person an opportunity to set out how their property should be dealt with after death, appoint people to administer the estate and make specific provisions for dependents and beneficiaries.
The controversy surrounding the Kalangwa family has largely been presented to the public through competing accusations. Yet the document at the centre of the dispute tells a more detailed story.
For a family that has already lost its patriarch, the continuing dispute is now about more than property. It is about whether the final wishes he committed to writing will ultimately provide the order and fairness he appears to have intended, or whether disagreements among those he left behind will continue to overshadow the estate he spent his lifetime building.
