Wakilii

Geyt v Geyt (Divorce Cause No. 1 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 628 · 1950 Damages Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Divorce petition granted; assessment of damages claimed against co-respondent for adultery
Decision
Decree nisi granted; damages of £750 awarded to petitioner; children remain in custody of respondent with petitioner having reasonable access

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 court awarded £750 damages against the co-respondent for adultery with the petitioner's wife. Damages for adultery are compensatory, not punitive, based on the actual loss to the husband including the value of the wife (pecuniary and consortium aspects), injury to feelings, blow to marital honour, and hurt to matrimonial life. The means of the co-respondent are not a priori relevant unless used to seduce the wife. The court has absolute discretion and need not award damages at all.

Outcome

Decree nisi granted; damages of £750 awarded to petitioner; children remain in custody of respondent with petitioner having reasonable access

Facts

The petitioner husband married the respondent in London in March 1939. They had two children. The marriage was reasonably happy until 1944. In 1944, the petitioner took his wife to England on medical advice, incurring official displeasure. Disagreements occurred during this period. The family returned to Uganda in 1946. In 1947, the petitioner and his wife jointly managed a hotel at Fort Portal where they became friendly with the co-respondent, a tea estate manager. The three moved to Kabale where the petitioner and his wife were to manage the White Horse Inn and the co-respondent invested in the hotel and purchased an adjoining cottage. The co-respondent and the respondent began an adulterous relationship around September 1947. The respondent informed the petitioner she could not live with him and he was displaced from the management position. The petitioner left Kabale and the respondent and co-respondent continued their relationship. The petitioner received direct proof of infidelity in May 1949.

Issues

  1. What principles govern the assessment of damages against a co-respondent in a divorce suit based on adultery?
  2. What quantum of damages should be awarded to the petitioner husband against the co-respondent?

Orders

  • Decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted as from 22nd September 1950.
  • Damages of £750 (Sh. 15,000) awarded against the co-respondent.
  • Co-respondent to pay damages into Court within 30 days.
  • Co-respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings.
  • Children to remain in custody of the respondent for the time being with liberty to the petitioner to apply.
  • Petitioner to have reasonable access to the children and to be consulted regarding their education.

Rules and key headnotes

Divorce — Damages Against Co-Respondent — Compensatory Nature
Damages against a co-respondent for adultery are compensatory and not exemplary or punitive, based on the actual loss to the husband.
Adultery Damages — Assessment Factors — Value of Wife
The value of the wife in assessing damages depends on two aspects: the pecuniary aspect (wife's fortune, assistance in husband's business, capacity as housekeeper, ability in the home) and the consortium aspect (wife's purity, moral character, affection, and general qualities as wife and mother).
Adultery Damages — Relevance of Co-Respondent's Means
The means of the co-respondent are not a priori relevant in assessing damages, but may become relevant where the co-respondent has used his wealth to bring about the seduction of the wife.
Adultery Damages — Co-Respondent's Conduct — Injury to Feelings
The character and conduct of the co-respondent become most material when considering the question of injury to the feelings and marital honour of the husband. Features of treachery, grossness of betrayal, or wantonness of insult may call for a larger measure of compensation.
Divorce — Damages Assessment — Husband's Conduct
The character and conduct of the husband is as fully in issue as the character and conduct of the wife in considering whether his neglect, harshness of language, or cruelty have destroyed his wife's affection or sapped her matrimonial fidelity.
Divorce — Damages Against Co-Respondent — Court's Discretion
The court has an absolute discretion in awarding damages against a co-respondent and need not award any damages at all, particularly where the wife is of little or no value to the husband.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance s.22

Cases cited (3)

  • Butterworth v Butterworth & Englefield (1920) P.D., L.R. 120
  • Keyse v Keyse & Maxwell (1886) 11 P.D. 100
  • Darbishire v Darbishire (1890) L.T. 664

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Geyt v Geyt (Divorce Cause No. 1 of 1950) [1950] EACA 628 (1 January 1950)
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.