Wakilii

Paul v Paul (Cause No. 41 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 83 · 1947 Petition Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Undefended petition for divorce on the ground of desertion for three years
Decision
Decree nisi of divorce granted to the petitioner with custody of the child

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 held that where a husband deserted his wife and subsequently lived under the same roof with her on four occasions only due to pressure from third parties, without any intention to resume married life and without sexual intercourse, there was no resumption of cohabitation or condonation of the desertion. The fact that parties lived under the same roof against the husband's wishes was not conclusive evidence of resumed cohabitation. The wife was entitled to a decree of divorce.

Outcome

Decree nisi of divorce granted to the petitioner with custody of the child

Facts

The parties married in 1941 and had one child born in June 1943. The petitioner alleged that the respondent deserted her from 12 May 1943. The respondent was serving in the Army and became inattentive after the child's birth, showing interest in another woman. He provided no matrimonial home and only small amounts of money. Between May 1943 and the petition date in August 1946, the parties lived under the same roof on four occasions for very short periods. On each occasion, the husband refused sexual intercourse despite the wife's willingness. The husband testified that he only came to the wife due to pressure from his commanding officer and mother, and had no intention of resuming married life on any occasion.

Issues

  1. Whether the parties' living under the same roof on four occasions during the alleged period of desertion constituted a resumption of cohabitation so as to condone the desertion and bring it to an end.
  2. Whether the absence of sexual intercourse and the husband's lack of intention to resume married life prevented condonation of the desertion.

Orders

  • Decree nisi of divorce granted.
  • Costs awarded against the respondent.
  • Custody of the child granted to the petitioner.

Rules and key headnotes

Divorce — Desertion — Resumption of Cohabitation — Intention Required
Living under the same roof does not constitute resumption of cohabitation where one party has no intention to resume married life and is present only due to pressure from third parties.
Divorce — Desertion — Condonation — Intention of Both Parties Required
Condonation of desertion requires the intention of both parties to resume cohabitation; the intention of one party alone is insufficient to interrupt the statutory period of desertion.
Divorce — Desertion — Absence of Sexual Intercourse — Effect on Condonation
The absence of sexual intercourse during periods when parties live under the same roof is evidence that cohabitation has not been resumed and that desertion has not been condoned.
Divorce — Desertion — Attempts at Reconciliation — Effect on Statutory Period
A deserted spouse's legitimate attempts to regain the other party's affection and support, even if involving spending nights under the same roof, do not interrupt the period of desertion where the deserting party remains obdurate and has no intention to reconcile.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, 1939 s.7

Cases cited (2)

  • Mummery v Mummery (1942) 1 All ER 553
  • Rowell v. Rowell

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul v Paul (Cause No. 41 of 1946) [1947] EACA 83 (1 January 1947)
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.