Lugwaro v Karema (Family Cause 67 of 2021)
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
Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply despite service, the petitioner must still prove all facts alleged. The court granted the mother sole custody of four children aged 7 to 17 years where the father abandoned them for seven years, and ordered maintenance contributions from the father including 80% of school fees and 50% of accommodation and medical costs. The court ordered partition by sale of jointly owned property with the mother receiving 60% of proceeds (including 10% compensation for displacement) and the father 40%, and directed a DNA test at the father's expense to establish paternity of the youngest child.
Outcome
Petition granted with sole custody awarded to mother, maintenance orders made against father, property ordered to be sold with 60/40 division in favour of mother, and DNA test ordered
Facts
The petitioner and respondent cohabited and had four children aged 17, 16, 14 and 7 years. In 2016, while the petitioner was pregnant with their fourth child, the respondent abandoned her and their three sons. The parties jointly owned property at Block 263 Plot 939 in Ssenge, Wakiso District with a house constructed on it. During COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, the petitioner was unable to return home from her workplace at Naalya market. When restrictions lifted, she found the respondent in possession of the house and he denied her access. Local council mediation directed that both parties should have access, but the respondent continued to deny the petitioner access. The respondent also denied paternity of the youngest child, Karema Eliana Mercy. The respondent was served with the petition on 28 February 2023 after several attempts, but failed to file an affidavit in reply. The matter proceeded exparte.
Issues
- What is the legal implication of the respondent not filing an affidavit in reply?
- Whether it is in the best interest of the children that the petitioner be granted full custody and maintenance orders?
- What other remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The petitioner is granted sole custody of the four children with visitation rights of once a month over the weekend to the respondent.
- The petitioner shall pay for the food and clothing for the children.
- The respondent shall contribute 50% towards the children's accommodation and medical care.
- The respondent shall contribute 80% of the children's school fees and the petitioner shall contribute 20%.
- The respondent shall cover the expenses of the children's school requirements.
- Any other miscellaneous needs of the child shall be covered by the petitioner.
- A DNA test shall be carried out on the respondent and the child Karema Mercy Eliana.
- The respondent shall avail himself for sample collection at DGAL Wandegeya within seven days and results transmitted to court within one month.
- The costs of the DNA test shall be borne by the respondent.
- Where Eliana Mercy Karema is found not to be the respondent's child, all orders for maintenance and custody shall not apply regarding this child.
- The property comprised in Block 263 Plot 939 Busiro, Mengo, land at Ssenge jointly owned by the parties shall be valued and severed by sale.
- The petitioner is entitled to 60% of the proceeds of the sale and the respondent is entitled to 40%.
- Costs are awarded to the petitioner.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (11)
- Children Act Cap.62 s.1
- Children Act Cap.62 s.3
- Children Act Cap.62 s.4(1)(a)
- Children Act Cap.62 s.4(2)
- Children Act Cap.62 s.5
- Children Act Cap.62 s.116
- Children Act Cap.62 s.121(1)(a)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 31(4)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 31(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 9 Rule 20
- Evidence Act Cap.8 s.101
Cases cited (8)
- Kaggwa Micheal v Olal Mark & 6 Others (Civil Appeal No. 0010 of 2017)
- Namukasa Joweria v Kakondere Livingstone (Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2010)
- Julius Chama v Specioza Rwalanda Mbabazi (Divorce Cause No. 25 of 2011)
- Birungi Nicholas v Kakyo Pamela (HCCA No. 32 of 2022)
- [2008] UGHCFD 1
- J v C [1970] AC 668
- Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 546
- Zachary Olum v Bongomin Odora (Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.