Rhona Nankindu Sebaleke v Denis Joseph Sebaleke (Divorce Cause 120 of 2018)

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 High Court granted a decree nisi dissolving the marriage. The court held it had jurisdiction because the marriage was solemnized in Uganda. Five properties were declared matrimonial property and ordered to be shared equally, including property acquired before marriage but used as the matrimonial home. The court rejected the claim that property in Kakunyu-Namusera was matrimonial due to insufficient proof of contribution. Both parents were ordered to support their adult children until completion of undergraduate studies, recognizing an exceptional circumstance where children remain in education beyond majority age.

Outcome

Marriage dissolved by decree nisi; matrimonial property divided equally between parties; both parents ordered to maintain children through undergraduate education

Facts

The petitioner and respondent married on 27 December 2003 at Sacred Heart Cathedral Lubaga. They had two children and lived primarily in London, UK. The petitioner alleged the marriage broke down due to violence, adultery, and emotional distress. Multiple properties were acquired during the marriage in Uganda, including land in Namugongo, Nansana, Kakiri, Bugimba, and Namusera. The respondent claimed the Namugongo property was acquired before marriage and gifted by his mother, and that it was never intended as a matrimonial home. The petitioner claimed she contributed financially to several properties and that the respondent fraudulently sold some properties without her consent. The children, aged 21 and 18 at judgment, were both still in education.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is competently before this Honourable court?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to division and or ownership of the matrimonial properties in dispute?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to custody, welfare, and maintenance of the children/issues of the marriage?

Orders

• A Decree Nisi is hereby pronounced dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.
• Both the petitioner and the respondent are granted unlimited access and rights to their children namely Cedric Reuben Sebaleke and Clive Anthony Sebaleke.
• Both parties shall provide for the education necessities of Cedric Reuben Sebaleke and Clive Anthony Sebaleke until the completion of their undergraduate studies or university degrees.
• The petitioner and respondent are entitled to an equal share (50/50) of their matrimonial home comprised in Block 223 Plot 1219 Namugongo.
• The petitioner is accorded 50% share in the property comprised in Nansana East-Kabumbi plot and Nansana East II London Imax.
• The properties in respect of land at Kyadondo Block 223 plot 1219 at Namugongo, Nansana Kabumbi plot, and Nansana East II London Imax shall be valued by the Chief Government Valuer and shall be advertised and sold by way of public auction and the proceeds realized shall be shared equally by the parties.
• The Registrar of this Court shall appoint a court bailiff who shall conduct the public auction process in accordance with execution processes under the Law of Uganda.
• The respondent shall maintain sole ownership of the property comprised in Block 250 Plots 293 and 295 Kakunyu Namusera.
• The respondent shall pay the costs of the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (17)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 31(1)(b)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 31(4)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139
• Divorce Act Cap 144 s.2
• Divorce Act Cap 144 s.30
• Marriage Act Cap 146 s.31
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.60
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.102
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
• Children Act s.2
• Children Act s.121(7)
• Children Act s.129
• Judicature Act s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.27
• Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act Cap 6 Rule 8

Cases cited (13)

• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
• Egypt Air Corporation t/a Egypt Air Uganda v Suffish International Food Processors Ltd & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 2000)
• Namukasa v Kakondere (Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2010)
• Bakiza v Nafuna Bakiza (Divorce Cause No. 22 of 2011)
• Ambayo v Aserua (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2015)
• Rwabinumi v Bahimbisomwe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
• Muwanga v Kintu (High Court Divorce Appeal No. 135 of 1997)
• Uhiriwe Peace v Kuuku Kagwa Paul (Divorce Cause No. 118 of 2018)
• Ayiko Mawa Solomon v Lekuru Ayiko (High Court Divorce Cause No. 1 of 2015)
• Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2007)
• Kagga v Kagga (High Court Divorce Cause No. 11 of 2005)
• George Okutho v Jennifer Angom (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022)
• Birungi Nicholas v Kakyo Pamela (Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2022)

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