Andrew Kananura v Sheila Taratibu (Divorce Cause 62 of 2024)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The High Court granted joint custody of three children to both parents following a divorce, with care and control to the mother during weekdays and access to the father on weekends and school holidays. The court held that joint parenting should be promoted to ensure both parents remain directly involved in the children's lives, and that sole custody should only be granted in exceptional circumstances such as established abuse. Parental responsibility is for life and animosity between parents alone does not justify sole custody orders.
Outcome
Joint custody granted with care and control to mother and access rights to father
Facts
The parties married on 30 December 2014 and had three children: Amara Joselyne Bridges Kananura, Amaani Estella Hills Kananura, and Aine Titian Andrews Kananura. They entered a partial consent judgment dissolving the marriage on grounds of cruelty, with the petitioner agreeing to pay school fees and medical care for the children. In May 2024, the respondent attended her maternal uncle's burial against the petitioner's wishes. While she was away, the petitioner told the children the marriage was over and cut communication. In June 2024, the respondent collected the children on the last day of term and reported the matter to the welfare officer, stating she was not comfortable returning them to the petitioner. The children, who are American citizens on dependency passes held by the petitioner, had been living with the respondent at her sister's house in Munyonyo since then. The respondent alleged the petitioner physically disciplined the children, verbally abused them, used drugs, and created an unsafe environment. The petitioner denied abuse and sought access to his children.
Issues
- Who should be granted custody of the three children of the marriage?
Orders
- Joint custody of the three children granted to both petitioner and respondent.
- Respondent to have care and control of the children during weekdays, especially when they are going to school.
- Petitioner granted access to the children either on a Saturday or Sunday each weekend depending on his convenience and that of the children.
- Children to spend at least one week of each school holiday with the petitioner.
- Both parents to continue to have direct involvement in the children's lives and to make long-term decisions affecting the children's upbringing and welfare in consultation with each other, taking into account the welfare of the children as the paramount consideration.
- Neither parent may unilaterally take the children outside the country without written consent of the other.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 34(1)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 31(5)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 24
- Children Act Cap 62 s.3(1)
- Children Act Cap 62 s.2
- Children Act Cap 62 s.4(1)(a)
- Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Regulations 2004 Regulation 2
- Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Regulations 2004 Regulation 4
Cases cited (4)
- Otto Methodius Pacific v Edyline Sabrina Pacific (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2013)
- Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi v Harriet Kamakume (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 142 of 2009)
- CX versus CY [20064] LRC
- Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei Chuan [2002] 1 SLR 177
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.