Turyatunga George v Teopista Besiime Aka Ninsiima [2026] UGHCFD 76
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 dismissed a husband's divorce petition, holding that he had proved none of the grounds pleaded. Allegations of witchcraft amounting to cruelty require cogent evidence; bare assertions of strange sounds, unproved illnesses and business collapse, without medical or other supporting proof, fail. A purported police confession to damaging CCTV cameras was disbelieved as likely induced by threats and by the petitioner's withholding of a child, and in any event such damage would not meet the threshold of cruelty. Desertion failed because the petitioner had chased the respondent from the marital bedroom and abandoned the home. Conversion from Catholic to Born Again faith is not a change of religion under Divorce Act s.4(b), which also requires a subsequent form of marriage.
Outcome
Divorce petition dismissed; marriage not dissolved; declarations made on matrimonial homes, access to children and maintenance
Facts
The parties married in a church ceremony at Rwengiri Parish, Kabale Diocese, Rukungiri District on 17 October 1988 and have nine children, five of whom were under 18 at the hearing. They maintained homes at Kawaala Zone II, Rubaga Division, Kampala, and at Nyabubale, Bwambala, Rukungiri District. The petitioner alleged the respondent left the Catholic faith for a Born Again church, practised witchcraft causing him strange noises, incurable headaches and the collapse of his taxi business, damaged a bedroom door and CCTV cameras, abandoned the marital bedroom and denied him conjugal rights. He adduced photographs, a police report and police testimony that the respondent confessed to damaging the cameras. The respondent denied the allegations, said the petitioner had introduced her to the Born Again church and himself became Orthodox, that he chased her from the marital bedroom, abandoned the home, sold the taxis to build the country home, and had fathered children with two other women. She explained her police confession as coerced by promises of access to her five-year-old child whom the petitioner had taken. The petitioner had withheld seven children from her for over a year until the court intervened. The respondent remained willing to preserve the marriage.
Issues
- Whether there were any grounds for dissolution of the marriage, namely cruelty, desertion and change of religion.
- Whether there is matrimonial property and, if so, how it should be dealt with.
- How custody and maintenance of the children of the marriage should be handled.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The Petition wholly fails and is dismissed; the Petitioner has failed to prove any of the grounds of divorce pleaded against the Respondent.
- The property at Kawaala Zone II, Rubaga Division, Kampala District and the home at Nyabubale, Bwambala in Rukungiri District are declared matrimonial property.
- The Respondent will remain in the Kawaala home uninterrupted.
- The Petitioner is at liberty to return to the Kawaala home if he so wishes.
- In the alternative, if unwilling to return home, the Petitioner is prohibited from interfering with the Respondent's peaceful occupation.
- The Respondent shall enjoy quiet and peaceful occupation of the Kawaala home.
- The Respondent shall access the Nyabubale home as and when she desires and the Petitioner is prohibited from denying or restricting such access.
- The Petitioner shall ensure children below 18 years are taken to the village home in Rukungiri during holidays where the Respondent shall have unlimited access to them.
- The Petitioner shall provide transport for the Respondent to and from Rukungiri.
- The Petitioner shall maintain the Respondent and the children while at the village home in Rukungiri.
- The children are at liberty to spend holidays at the Kawaala home if they wish.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (6)
- Sarah Kiyemba v Batte (Divorce Cause No. 0127 of 2018)
- Sarah Kiyemba v Batte (Divorce Cause No. 0127 of 2018)
- Byamugisha James v Tushemerirwe Specioza (Divorce Cause No. 1 of 2025)
- Habyarimana versus Habyarimana [1980] HCB 139
- Vivian Ntanda v James Kayemba (Divorce Cause No. 4 of 2008)
- Kayhul v Kayhul (Divorce Cause No. 133 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.