Wakilii

Nyabayango v Kabasinguzi & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGHCFD 37 · 2014 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection raised by 2nd defendant in civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

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

Held that the High Court has jurisdiction to apply constitutional provisions to disputes without requiring Constitutional Court interpretation where no constitutional interpretation is needed. A plaint discloses a cause of action where it pleads the plaintiff enjoyed a right, the right was violated, and the defendant is liable. An agreement restricting a party absolutely from enforcing rights by legal proceedings is void under the Contracts Act. A plaintiff may choose to seek restitution of conjugal rights rather than divorce. Preliminary objection overruled with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant were married in church. The plaintiff alleged that the 2nd defendant seduced his wife into an extramarital relationship resulting in a child. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the 2nd defendant's act of seducing his wife was unconstitutional and for restitution of conjugal rights. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff had signed an agreement with the 2nd defendant in which he received UGX 85,000,000 and undertook to withdraw all allegations and not raise any matter against the 2nd defendant in future. The 2nd defendant raised a preliminary objection on four grounds: that the plaintiff sought a constitutional declaration that only the Constitutional Court could grant; that the plaint disclosed no cause of action; that the agreement barred further action; and that the plaintiff should have petitioned for divorce rather than seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to declare the acts complained of as unconstitutional or whether the matter requires referral to the Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 2nd defendant.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is barred from bringing the action because he received money from the 2nd defendant and signed an agreement not to bring further actions on the matter.
  4. Whether the plaintiff should have petitioned for divorce rather than suing for restitution of conjugal rights.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled in all its aspects.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of Courts — Distinction Between Interpretation and Application of Constitution
Every court in Uganda is vested with jurisdiction to construe, apply and enforce the provisions of the Constitution in relation to any dispute before it. However, where any matter requires interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, only the Court of Appeal sitting as a Constitutional Court can interpret such provision. For the Constitutional Court to have jurisdiction, the petition must show on its face that interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is required. It is not enough to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated. If rights have been violated, these are enforceable by another competent court without requiring constitutional interpretation.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Test for Disclosing a Cause of Action
A cause of action means every fact which is material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed. To establish a cause of action, the plaint must show that: (1) the plaintiff enjoyed a right; (2) that right has been violated; and (3) the defendant is liable. If these three elements are present, a cause of action is disclosed. In determining whether a suit discloses a cause of action, court looks ordinarily only at the plaint and assumes that the facts alleged in it are true, without going into extrinsic evidence.
Contract Law — Void Contracts — Agreements Ousting Jurisdiction of Courts
An agreement which restricts a party absolutely from enforcing his or her rights by legal proceedings, or which limits the time within which a party may enforce his or her rights, is void to that extent. A contract intended to oust the jurisdiction of court is void. If such contracts were allowed, courts would be denied the power to adjudicate on contracts which deny a person the right to enforce their rights.
Family Law — Matrimonial Remedies — Choice Between Divorce and Restitution of Conjugal Rights
A plaintiff chooses the nature of case to be filed depending on the nature of injury suffered and what available legal remedy he or she wishes to pursue. The remedy of divorce and restitution of conjugal rights are both provided under divorce laws. A plaintiff may opt to seek restitution of conjugal rights rather than divorce where he desires the continuation of the marriage rather than ending it.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kabagambe v Uganda Electricity Board (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 1999)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co v West End [1969] EA 696

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyabayango v Kabasinguzi & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012) [2014] UGHCFD 37 (1 July 2014)
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.