Wakilii

Asiimwe Annet Backbeth v Nabimanya Mark (Family Cause 2 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 69 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for custody order to enable mother to travel with child to the Netherlands
Decision
Application partly allowed — mother permitted to travel with child to Netherlands and have custody there; exclusive custody order declined for want of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 declined to make an exclusive custody order, holding that applications seeking only custody orders should be filed in the Magistrate's Court as the court of first instance under Rule 19 of the Children (Family and Children's Court) Rules. However, the court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under section 37 of the Judicature Act to grant remedies in the interest of justice, allowing the mother to travel with the child to the Netherlands and have custody while there, given both parents' constitutional duty to care for the child under Article 31(4) of the Constitution.

Outcome

Application partly allowed — mother permitted to travel with child to Netherlands and have custody there; exclusive custody order declined for want of jurisdiction

Facts

The applicant mother, a Ugandan national residing in the Netherlands, applied for custody of her 12-year-old daughter Nabimanya Hailey to enable her to travel with the child to the Netherlands. The applicant is a director and shareholder of Munyenye Lodges Ltd and has been the child's primary caregiver, providing for school fees and other needs. The respondent father, who resides in Uganda, filed an affidavit in reply supporting the application and consenting to the child staying with the mother in the Netherlands. A probation officer's social inquiry report was filed. The child's birth certificate confirmed both parties as biological parents. The applicant appeared via video link from the Netherlands pursuant to the Judicature (Visual-Audio Link) Rules 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine an application seeking only a custody order.
  2. Whether the applicant mother can travel with the child to the Netherlands.

Orders

  • The applicant (Asiimwe Annet Backbeth) as the mother of the child called Nabimanya Hailey can travel with her said daughter to the Netherlands.
  • The respondent (Nabimanya Mark) shall give written consent to the child staying in the Netherlands with her mother.
  • The applicant (Asiimwe Annet Backbeth) as the mother of the child, shall have custody of the child while in the Netherlands.
  • The costs of the application shall be met by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Family Law — Custody — Jurisdiction — High Court versus Magistrate's Court
An application by Ugandans seeking only a custody order ought to be filed in the Magistrate's Court, which is legally clothed with jurisdiction as the court of first instance under Rule 19 of the Children (Family and Children's Court) Rules S.I 59-2, and not in the High Court.
Family Law — Custody — High Court Jurisdiction — Ancillary Relief
The High Court resolves custody disputes in matters where there are other orders sought that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, for example when the High Court is considering a divorce matter, it can upon determining the divorce also resolve custody of the children.
Constitutional Law — Rights of the Family — Parental Duty to Care for Children
Article 31(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda imposes a constitutional duty on both parents to care for and bring up their children, which duty subsists regardless of which parent has physical custody.
Family Law — Custody — Custody by Agreement — Procedure
Where parties agree on who should have custody, they ought to explore the remedy of custody by agreement under section 118 of the Children Act Cap 62, which is a shorter procedure requiring endorsement of an agreement by a relevant court once certain conditions are met, including that there was no duress or fraud and that the agreement is in the best interest of the child.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Section 37 Judicature Act — Remedies in the Interest of Justice
The High Court is empowered by section 37 of the Judicature Act Cap 16 to give remedies in the interest of justice, which power may be invoked to grant appropriate relief even where the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the primary relief sought.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Asiimwe Annet Backbeth v Nabimanya Mark (Family Cause 2 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 69 (4 February 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.