Igeme v Nalwoga (Divorce Cause 100 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The court granted a decree nisi dissolving the marriage on grounds of cruelty, finding that the respondent's unsubstantiated accusations of sexual abuse against the petitioner and the children, despite investigations by police and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions finding no merit, constituted cruelty. The court awarded the petitioner 90% of the matrimonial property and the respondent 10%, reflecting that the petitioner purchased the land before marriage and made the majority of financial contributions. The court awarded primary custody of all three children to the petitioner, finding that the respondent's continued pursuit of false allegations and abusive language demonstrated unmotherly behaviour inconsistent with the children's best interests.

Outcome

Marriage dissolved by decree nisi; primary custody awarded to petitioner with limited visitation for respondent; matrimonial property divided 90% to petitioner and 10% to respondent

Facts

The parties married at St. Andrews Anglican Church, Jinja on 22 June 2009 and had three children together. The petitioner purchased two plots of land at Busiro Block 392 Plots 99 and 71 in 2001, before the marriage, and constructed houses thereon. The respondent alleged that the petitioner sexually abused her and the children, filing police reports CIDHQTRS GEF 115/2021 and 85/2021. The Directorate of Public Prosecutions investigated the allegations on two separate occasions and dismissed the charges for lack of merit. Medical examinations at Mulago Hospital and psychiatric evaluations found no evidence of sexual abuse. The Uganda Police Force issued a press release on 8 March 2023 stating the allegations were false and frivolous. The respondent used abusive language toward the petitioner and children in audio recordings, including cursing them and stating they would suffer. The respondent contributed to some developments on the property, including purchasing a water tank, supervising construction, and developing botanical and flower gardens. The petitioner has been providing for all the children's needs including school fees during the proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether there are any grounds for divorce between the Petitioner and the Respondent?
2. Whether the Property Comprised in Busiro Block 392 Plots 99 and 71 is Matrimonial Property?
3. Who is entitled to Custody?
4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• A decree Nisi is hereby pronounced dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent.
• The Petitioner shall have primary custody of the children.
• The Respondent shall have visiting rights over the weekend twice every month regarding the youngest child, until the child turns 14 year old to decide for himself.
• The two eldest children shall have the right to decide when to visit their mother as they are at an age where their wishes can be ascertained.
• The parties shall alternate religious and public holidays per orders 2 and 3 above.
• The Petitioner is awarded 90% of the suit property comprised at Busiro Block 392 Plot 99 and 71 including the two houses comprised thereon and half the value of the trees comprised on Plot 99.
• The Respondent is awarded 10% of the value of the suit property to be paid in cash to her by the Petitioner upon determination of a payment plan, any moveable plants, and flowers on the property, and half of the value of the trees (Pine and Eucalyptus trees) comprised on Plot 99.
• The respondent shall not remove and/or destroy the fruit orchard or any fruit tree anywhere on the property (Block 392 Plot 99 and Plot 71).
• The Petitioner and the Respondent shall have the responsibility to provide maintenance of their children while in their custody.
• The Petitioner shall pay their school fees and provide for all their basic needs and school requirements.
• No vehicle shall be distributed to the Respondent.
• The award of Permanent Alimony to the Respondent is denied.
• Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Marriage Act Cap. 251 s.33
• Divorce Act Cap. 249 s.4
• Divorce Act Cap. 249 s.8
• Children Act Cap. 59 s.1(q)
• Children Act Cap. 59 s.3
• Children Act Cap. 59 s.5
• Registration of Titles Act Cap. 259 s.59
• Evidence Act Cap. 6 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap. 6 s.102
• Evidence Act Cap. 6 s.103
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art. 31(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art. 31(4)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art. 120
• Law Revision (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2023 s.18
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 18 Rule 14

Cases cited (20)

• Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA) & 5 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2002)
• Habyarimana Vs Habyarimana (1980) HCB 139
• Gakwavu Vs. Mariana Gasengayire [1977] HCB 322
• Bongole Geoffrey & Others v Agnes Nakiwala (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2015)
• Nagidde Rebecca v Mwasa Charles Steven (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2018)
• Fernandes V Noroniha [1969] EA 506
• De Souza v. Uganda [1967] EA 784
• Yeseri Waibi v. Edisa Byandala [1982] I1CB 28
• Nsibambi v. Nankya [1980] HCB 81
• Charman v. Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civil 503; [2007] 1 FLR 1246
• Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
• Essa Vs Essa, Kenya Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1995
• Rimmer Vs. Rimmer [1953] 1 QB.63
• Kagga v Kagga (Divorce Cause No. 11 of 2005)
• Ambayo v Aserua (Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015)
• Hart Versus Hart [2018] Fam93 [2]
• Kagimu Vs Kagimu (2001-2005) 3 HCB 100
• Gillick V West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Authority [1986] AC 112, 166-75, 181-90
• Lough Versus Ward 1945 2 ALL ER 338
• Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511

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