Abraham Ahabwe2025-10-162025-10-162025-09-22https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11951/1958NAThe aim of this study is to identify the challenges in translating legal documents and show how to solve them. This study has taken its case study as The Succession Act Chapter (Cap) 162 in the Laws of Uganda (2001). The translation however doesn’t capture the 2022 amendments to this law. The document considered here is in English as a Source Language (SL) and was rendered into Runyankore/Rukiga as a Target Language (TL) since it is widely spoken by Bantu people of South Western Uganda. The study adopted a qualitative case study design where the Succession Act Cap 162 was deliberately selected as the primary text because of its social significance in regulating family property and inheritance, which are central issues in Runyankore-Rukiga–speaking communities. The population of interest consisted of legal texts and experts relevant to the translation process. Thematic content analysis method was used in the translation of The Succession Act CAP 162. The translation was made in line with the Skopos translation theory which balances both the assumptions of Nida’s translation theory (formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence) and Venuti translation theory (domestication and foreignization). While translating, the researcher made sure that the message in the target language matches with the message of the source language as closely as possible, by maintaining the linguistic elements of the source language. This study revealed that the translation of the Succession Act Cap 162 presented challenges at several levels, namely lexical, syntactic, conceptual/cultural, modality, and formatting. Lexical difficulties were especially common where highly specialized English legal terms, such as probate, letters of administration, or incorporeal tenements, had no direct equivalents in Runyankore-Rukiga.Syntactic challenges also emerged strongly, particularly the difficulty of rendering the long, heavily embedded sentences and multiple provisos characteristic of legal drafting. In my experience, clauses often had to be segmented or reordered to achieve clarity without altering legal effect. Conceptual and cultural challenges further complicated the process. For example, kinship terms such as nephew or cousin-german did not map neatly onto indigenous Runyankore-Rukiga categories, while common-law constructs like intestacy or probate lacked customary equivalents. Another persistent challenge was modality and performativity. English modals such as shall, may, or shall not carry binding legal force, yet Runyankore-Rukiga markers of obligation and permission differ in strength and nuance. Finally, formatting challenges such as clause numbering, headings, and layout proved significant. In addressing the above challenges, I drew upon a repertoire of strategies supported by both theory and prior empirical studies. At the lexical level, my main solutions were controlled borrowing with a first-mention gloss, neologism, and the creation of a mini-glossary. For instance, terms like probate were borrowed and explained in context, thereby preserving legal identity while ensuring comprehension. To resolve syntactic challenges, I employed clause segmentation and reordering, always checked against the legal scope by consulting experts. With respect to conceptual and cultural mismatches, I relied heavily on explication, compound or hyphenated forms, and occasional marginal notes. For example, kinship terms without direct equivalents were expanded into descriptive phrases that preserved meaning at the expense of brevity. For modality issues, my solution was calibrated equivalence with legal validation. Each English modal was mapped to a Runyankore-Rukiga form of commensurate strength, and then checked with a lawyer for doctrinal accuracy. Finally, formatting challenges were addressed by retaining original numbering and sectioning while adding parallel Runyankore-Rukiga signposting (e.g., Part VIII / Ekicweka VIII). The study concludes that translating the Succession Act Cap 162 from English into Runyankore-Rukiga is a complex undertaking that confronts multiple layers of challenge but can be successfully managed through theoretically informed strategies. The solutions adopted in solving the above challenges; controlled borrowing, clause segmentation, explication, validation, and careful formatting; demonstrate how translation theory can be operationalized in practice. The study recommends the government of Uganda to promote translation of all legal documents from English to local languages not only to enlarge the corpus of literature in mother tongues but also to increase understandability of laws among all people. The government should encourage publishers in Uganda to publish the Succession Act in different local languages and advertise the translated versions in other media such as radios, televisions among others for public awareness. The study also encourages authors and translators of legal documents in Uganda’s local languages by having their works copyrighted, published and set for sale in Ugandan bookshops, have expert review by legal experts in order to improve the accuracy of the translated text and review the translated text several times in order to identify and correct possible errors of omission and commission as well as ensure that the translated version has the same meaning and interpretation as the source language text. Lastly, all family heads and the elderly should always refer to the Succession Act cap 162 before writing their wills. This will guide them on the distribution of property and wealth once they are no longer alive. This will also prevent domestic violence and riots within the families after the death of the household head. In the first Chapter, there is: the background to this study, the statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, its scope and significance of the study. Chapter two has the literature review. Chapter three highlights the methodology that guided the investigator while Chapter four is the analysis and presentation of findings. Chapter five comprises of the discussion of findings on challenges and how they have been overcome to create a seamless translation of the Act. Chapter six draws up conclusions, and makes recommendations for future translation of similar literature into Runyankore-Rukiga that could guide work in other Bantu languages.enThesis