Wakilii

Tibahwerayo v Namuli (Miscellaneous Application No. 443a of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCFD 42 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for protection order under Domestic Violence Act arising from earlier divorce proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed; parties directed to live separately in their respective properties pending final disposal of related appeal

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 High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear domestic violence applications despite such matters ordinarily being within magistrates' jurisdiction. An application for a protection order fails where the applicant does not prove actual violence, harassment, or threat to health and safety, even where divorced parties continue living together.

Outcome

Application dismissed; parties directed to live separately in their respective properties pending final disposal of related appeal

Facts

The applicant and respondent divorced in September 2016. Prior to divorce, the respondent had deserted the matrimonial home in Bugolobi. After divorce proceedings commenced, she returned. A previous restraint order directed the applicant to move to their Mbuya property. The applicant alleges the respondent followed him to Mbuya and harassed him, causing him to return to Bugolobi. Both parties continued living in the Bugolobi house. The applicant sought a protection order claiming the living arrangement caused psychological and emotional breakdown. The respondent disputed these allegations, stating she went to Mbuya to make property improvements and that she feared for her own safety. No independent evidence of harassment, violence, or threat was presented.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act.
  2. Whether the application for a protection order should be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Until the appeal is finally disposed of, the respondent shall return to Mbuya while the applicant stays at Bugolobi.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — High Court — Unlimited Original Jurisdiction — Domestic Violence Applications
Although the Domestic Violence Act vests jurisdiction in matters of domestic violence and applications for protection orders in the Magistrates Court, the High Court retains unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139 of the Constitution and Section 14 of the Judicature Act to entertain such applications.
Domestic Violence — Protection Orders — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act bears the burden of proving that the respondent's conduct harms, injures, or endangers the applicant's health, safety, life, or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, and contradictory conduct by the applicant undermines the credibility of such allegations.
Domestic Violence — Protection Orders — Evidence Requirements
Where an applicant claims harassment and psychological abuse but presents no corroborating evidence from neighbors, local council leadership, religious leaders, or police, and the applicant's own conduct contradicts the alleged fear, the court will find no proof of domestic violence and dismiss the application.

Legislation cited (15)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tibahwerayo v Namuli (Miscellaneous Application No. 443a of 2018) [2019] UGHCFD 42 (26 August 2019)
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.