Wakilii

Tate v Tate (Cause No. 43 of 1943)

East African Court of Appeal · [1944] EACA 17 · 1944 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for permanent alimony following decree of judicial separation
Decision
Permanent alimony awarded to the wife at £31 per month

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 in ordinary circumstances on an application for permanent alimony in judicial separation proceedings, the court will proceed on the basis of one-third of the joint incomes of the husband and wife. Alimony should be assessed on annual income, not on property that produces no current income. The court ordered the respondent to pay £31 per month as permanent alimony, calculated as one-third of the joint annual incomes (£1,772) less the wife's own income.

Outcome

Permanent alimony awarded to the wife at £31 per month

Facts

The petitioner wife obtained a decree of judicial separation from the respondent husband on 16 December 1943. The parties had agreed to interim alimony of £25 per month pending determination of permanent maintenance, without inquiry into their means. The wife then applied for permanent alimony under section 24(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance 1939. The husband's income comprised £1,200 per annum salary, £150 per annum rent from a house on Ngong Road let to their son, and an entitlement to 20% commission on net profits of his company (estimated at £200 per annum though not yet received). The wife's income was £222 per annum. The parties made mutual allegations regarding conduct, but the court found the marriage had been disrupted by incompatibilities in temperament and interests for which each was probably equally to blame.

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate basis for assessing permanent alimony following a decree of judicial separation under section 24(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance 1939?
  2. Whether the conduct of the parties should be considered when determining permanent alimony under section 24(4).
  3. What income should be taken into account when assessing alimony, including whether non-income-producing property should be considered.

Orders

  • As and from the date of the decree of judicial separation, the respondent shall pay to the petitioner by way of permanent alimony the sum of £31 (Sh. 620) per month.
  • Liberty to both parties to apply.
  • The petitioner will have the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Family Law — Judicial Separation — Permanent Alimony — Assessment Principles
In ordinary circumstances on an application by a wife for permanent alimony in proceedings arising out of judicial separation, the court will proceed on the basis of one-third of the joint incomes of the husband and wife.
Family Law — Alimony — Income Assessment — Non-Income-Producing Property
Alimony should be assessed on the annual income of the parties. Property that produces no current income should not ordinarily be taken into account, though income that is earned but accumulating rather than paid out may be considered.
Family Law — Permanent Alimony — Conduct of Parties — Relevance
The court's discretion under section 24(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance in awarding permanent alimony following judicial separation is unfettered, and it is at least arguable whether the conduct of the parties must be considered under that provision, unlike in dissolution proceedings under section 24(2).

Legislation cited (3)

  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance 1939 s.24(4)
  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance 1939 s.24(2)
  • Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 s.190(1)

Cases cited (18)

  • Horniman v Horniman (1933) P 95
  • Crampton v Crampton & Armstrong (1863) 32 LJP 142
  • Wilson v Wilson (1872) 26 LT 108
  • Leslie v Leslie (1908) P 99
  • Leslie v Leslie (1911) P 203
  • Dean v Dean (1923) P 172
  • Harris v Morris (1801) 4 Esp 41
  • Wilson v Glossop (1888) 20 QBD 354
  • Restall v Restall (1930) P 189
  • Shearn v Shearn (1931) P 1
  • Stribbe v Stribbe (1931) P 105
  • Lindsay v Lindsay (1934) P 162
  • Chichester v Chichester (1936) P 129
  • Perkins v Perkins (1938) P 210
  • Gilbey v Gilbey (1927) P 197
  • Acworth v Acworth (1943) P 21
  • Robinson v Robinson (1943) P 43
  • Gardiner v Gardiner (1920) 36 TLR 294

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tate v Tate (Cause No. 43 of 1943) [1944] EACA 17 (1 January 1944)
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.