[2025] UGHCFD 9

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [FAMILY DIVISION]**

# **MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 98 OF 2024**

**BRIANNA ROSE MCLEOD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**

#### **VERSUS**

**JOSEPH MUGISHA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

## **RULING BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CELIA NAGAWA**

## **1.0 Introduction.**

- 1.1 This Ruling relates to a Notice of Motion brought by the Applicant under **Sections 3 and 4 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282, Section 37 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16 and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I. 71-1** seeking for the following orders; - i) This Honorable Court registers and enforces the judgments and orders dated 22nd January, 2024 and confirmed on 22nd October, 2024, of the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas, United States of America, in the High Court of Uganda. - ii) This Honorable Court makes such orders necessary to meet the ends of Justice. - iii) Costs be provided for. - 1.2 The grounds of the Application filed on 25th October, 2024 are summarized in the Notice of Motion and also set out in the Affidavit sworn in support of the Application by **Shadia**


**Nalweyiso Mutayaba**, an enrolled advocate practicing with M/s. Kirunda & Co. Advocates, the law firm jointly instructed with Diana K & Co. Advocates to represent the Applicant in this matter. Briefly, the grounds of the Application are that;

- 1. On 8th January, 2024, the Applicant filed an Original Petition in suit affecting a parent child relationship in the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas. - 2. On 22nd January, 2024, the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas ordered and appointed the Applicant Temporary Sole Managing Conservator of the children under Section 152.204 of the Texas Family Code. The order restricts the children's removal from Texas or the United States of America. - 3. On 5th March, 2024, the Respondent challenged the Texas court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody of the children in issue. - 4. On 18th September, 2024, the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas found that the court has jurisdiction over the children with finality. - 5. The Applicant wishes to register and enforce the judgment and orders of the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas here in Uganda and meets the criteria provided for in law. - 6. The Applicant prays that the court applies the doctrines of theory, obligation and comity in enforcement of judgments from the Unites States of America. - 7. It is in the interest of justice that the Court grants this Application.


- 1.3 On 1st November, 2024, the Applicant filed a supplementary affidavit in support of the Application deposed by Shadia Nalweyiso Mutyaba, an enrolled advocate practicing with M/s. Kirunda & Co. Advocates. - 1.4 On 21st February, 2025, the Applicant filed a further affidavit in support of the Application deposed by Aine Raymond, an advocate also practicing with M/s. Kirunda & Co. Advocates. - 1.5 The Respondent, on the other hand, filed his Affidavit in Reply to the Application in which he contends among others that; - i) The Application offends the *Lis pendens* rule. - ii) The District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas did not have jurisdiction to make the orders the Applicant seeks to register. - iii) The Temporary orders sought to be registered are not final and conclusive and as a result are not capable of being registered. - iv) The Temporary orders are non-registrable because they cannot be enforced by execution in the country of the original court and they arose out of proceedings whose orders cannot be registered in Uganda. - v) The Applicant has no locus standi to file this Application since the rights sought in the Judgment are not vested in her but the issues of the marriage. - vi) The children are Ugandan citizens on the basis that both the Respondent and their grandparents are Ugandan citizens by birth and have never renounced nor lost their Uganda citizenship by any legally known procedure. - vii) The habitual residence of the children is in Seguku, Katale, Wakiso, Uganda where they have lived for the past nine (9) years.


- viii) The parties entered into a post-nuptial agreement where they agreed to share custody of the children equally in the event the marriage failed and since they separated and stopped living together on 6th June, 2023 they agreed to share custody of the children equally. - ix) In breach of the post-nuptial agreement, on 10th December, 2023, the Applicant parentally abducted the children and took them to Texas, USA despite undertaking to return to Uganda on 31st December, 2023. - x) The Applicant hoodwinked the Court by making wild allegations in her affidavit. - xi) The proceedings in which the Temporary Orders were granted offended the rules of natural justice since the Respondent was not present and did not have counsel to represent him.

# **2.0 Background of the Case.**

- 2.1. The Applicant is an American citizen. The Respondent is a Ugandan citizen, resident of Sseguku, Wakiso District. - 2.1.2. The Applicant and the Respondent are legally married. A marriage celebrated on 7th August, 2014, at the Chapel of the Bells in Las Vegas, Nevada. Together, they have two children: Mukiiza Aiden Mushoka, born on 24th March, 2015, at City Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, under Registration Number DU/N/4052/2015 and Uwineza Niah Mushoka, born on 11th May, 2019**,** at Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya, under Entry Number 0264877907. Both children hold American passports.


- 2.13. On 8th January, 2024, the Applicant filed an Original Petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship under Cause No. 24-0066- F425, in the interest of the issue of the marriage, before the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. - 2.1.4. On 17th January, 2024, at 1:16 p.m., the attorney representing the Applicant, sent an email to the Respondent notifying him of the filing of the Original Petition. The Respondent was also informed that a hearing had been scheduled in the matter before the 425th Judicial District Court on Monday, 22nd January, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. and was provided with options to appear in person or via Zoom. The Respondent was requested to confirm if he preferred a virtual appearance so that a Zoom link could be obtained from the court. He was also requested to inform the Applicant's attorney if he retained legal counsel and to provide his attorney's contact information to facilitate communication. - 2.1.5. On 18th January, 2024 at 4:49 p.m, the Respondent was formally served with the Petition in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship filed on 8th January, 2024, Citation, a Certified Copy of the Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Hearing and a Precept at Lweza Trading Centre. A Service Return was availed to this Honorable Court. - 2.1.6. On 19th January, 2024, at 10:57 a.m., the Applicant's attorney sent another email to the Respondent informing him that she had learnt he had been formally and personally served in Uganda with the paperwork regarding the upcoming hearing. The Applicant's attorney again requested the Respondent to confirm whether he wished to participate via Zoom or Microsoft Teams so that she could arrange for


the court to provide the Respondent with a link for the hearing. The Respondent was again reminded about the hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST).

- 2.1.7. On 22nd January, 2024, the Original Petition was heard. The Applicant appeared in person and through her attorney, while the Respondent, despite being served in Kampala on 18th January, 2024, and given the option to appear remotely or in person, did not attend the hearing. - 2.1.8. Following the hearing, on 22nd January, 2024 (the same date), temporary orders were issued in Trial Court Cause No. 24-0066-F425, before the 425th District Court of Williamson County, Texas in which among other various orders, the Applicant was appointed temporary sole managing conservator, while the Respondent was appointed temporary possessory conservator of the children. The Respondent and any person acting on his behalf was also prohibited from removing the children from Texas or the United States. - 2.2. Thereafter, on 7th February, 2024, the Respondent filed in the Family Division of the High Court, Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024 against the Applicant which matter is still pending this court's determination. - 2.3. On 5th March, 2024, the Respondent also filed a Special Appearance in Cause No. 24-0066-F425 in the 425th Judicial District, Williamson County, Texas, challenging the Texas court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody of the children and requesting the court to stay the proceedings in Cause No. 24-0066-F425. The Respondent also filed an application to appear virtually for the hearing scheduled for 16th April, 2024.


- 2.4. On 16th April, 2024, the Applicant appeared in person with her attorney, while the Respondent appeared via videoconference with his attorney. The Court considered the Respondent's plea to jurisdiction, motion to decline jurisdiction, and motion to stay. - 2.5. On 10th September, 2024**,** without availing this Honorable Court with a certified true copy of the Temporary Orders issued on 22nd January, 2024 by the 425th Judicial District, Williamson County, Texas and pending the ruling regarding the Respondent's plea to jurisdiction, motion to decline jurisdiction, and motion to stay, the Family Division of the High Court of Uganda issued an Interim Order vide Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024 that the children of the marriage be returned to Uganda by the Applicant within seven (7) days from the date of the order (i.e., by 16th September, 2024) and be handed over to their biological father (the Respondent) pending the determination of Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024**.** - 2.6. On 18th September, 2024, the Texas Court issued its findings of fact and made its ruling in Special Appearance in Cause No. 24-0066-F425 in the 425th Judicial District, Williamson County, Texas, holding that; the Petitioner and the children are U. S. citizens and they are entitled to protection pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution; Texas is an appropriate forum for the case, the Respondent has availed himself of the protections and benefits of the laws of the United States throughout his entire adult life, that he possesses sufficient means to hire counsel in Texas and to travel to Texas and it would not cause him a hardship to participate in this litigation. The Texas court denied the Respondent's plea to jurisdiction, motion to decline jurisdiction and motion to stay in its

 entirety and reaffirmed the temporary orders entered on 22nd January, 2024.

2.7. On 7th February, 2025, the 425th Judicial District, Williamson County, Texas made final orders in Cause No. 24-0066-F425 in the suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

## **3.0 Representation and Hearing.**

- 3.1 The Applicant was represented by Robert Kirunda of M/s. Kirunda & Co. Advocates and Diana Kasabiiti of Diana K. & Co. Advocates. - 3.2 The Respondent was represented by Mark Kizza of M/s. Origa Advocates. - 3.3 Both parties filed written submissions. This Court has perused, analyzed and considered all the parties written submissions and all documents submitted in the determination of this Application.

## **4.0 Issues to be resolved by Court.**

- i. Whether the orders dated 22nd January, 2024 and confirmed on 22nd October, 2024 by the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas, USA can be registered and enforced in Uganda? - ii. What remedies are available to the Applicant?

## 4.1. **Determination by Court.**

## *4.2. Preliminary Objection.*

4.2.1. The Respondent in his Affidavit in Reply filed stated that he was advised by his lawyers that the orders sought to be registered offend express provisions of the law rendering the Application not maintainable and fatally defective**.** He stated that his lawyers would


raise the five preliminary objections which he outlined in his Affidavit in Reply. However, the Respondent in his written submissions filed on 23rd December, 2024 only made submissions with respect to only one preliminary objection, which I will address, that is, whether the Application offends the *Lis Pendens* rule**.**

- 4.2.2. The Respondent submitted that, in light of **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act**, Cap. 282 it is improper for a dispute to be litigated in two different courts within the same country over the same subject matter and in pursuit of the same relief**.** That the rationale behind this provision is to prevent conflicting decisions from being made by different courts on the same matter and also to discourage forum shopping**.** - 4.2.3. The Respondent argued that, in the present case, there is a pending Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024 between the same parties**,** which involves the determination of custody of the issues of the marriage which question of law and fact has been placed before this Court by the Applicant for resolution although through an Application to register foreign orders. That, additionally, this Honorable Court has already issued temporary orders similar to those that the Applicant seeks to register and that the orders sought to be registered contradict the existing orders issued by this Honorable Court. - 4.2.4. The Respondent further contended that registering temporary orders whose applicability has been overtaken by events would be contrary to public policy and serve no practical purpose. He also argued that the Applicant's delay in filing this Application having obtained the foreign orders in January, 2024 but only seeking registration much later demonstrates inexcusable lack of diligence on the Applicant's part. He submitted that it would be more prudent for this Court to


dismiss the Application and allow the court handling the Divorce proceedings to make final determinations regarding custody of the children. He also argued that, even though this Court were to entertain the Application, the issue of custody would still remain live in the Divorce proceedings, given that the foreign orders are temporary and the trial court may, at any stage, vary or discharge the orders with respect to custody.

4.2.5. **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282** provides as follows:

*"No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where that suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Uganda to grant the relief claimed.*

*Explanation. - The pendency of a suit in a foreign court shall not preclude a court from trying a suit in which the same matters or any of them are in issue in that suit in the foreign court."*

- 4.3. I find that it is undisputed that Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024 is pending before this Court, and it includes child custody issues**.** However, the Application before this Court does not seek to determine fresh custody arrangements but rather to register and recognize foreign orders issued by the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas, USA with regard to the parent-child relationship**.** - 4.3.1. The *Lis Pendens rule* under **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act** *(supra)* applies to parallel proceedings within Uganda, not to the recognition of foreign judicial decisions**.** If the foreign court properly


exercised jurisdiction, this Court must consider whether the orders meet the legal threshold for enforcement under Ugandan law.

- 4.3.2. In light of the foregoing, I therefore find that the *Lis Pendens rule* under **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act** does not apply in this case, as the Application seeks recognition of a foreign order rather than the determination of custody afresh**.** Also, the pendency of Divorce Cause No. 27 of 2024 does not automatically bar this Court from considering whether or not to recognize the foreign orders**.** Whether or not the foreign orders should be registered and enforced in Uganda is a separate question that must be determined on its merits based on Ugandan law. Accordingly, therefore, the Preliminary Objection is overruled, and the Court shall proceed to determine the Application on its merits**.** - **5.0. Issue 1:** *Whether the orders dated 22nd January, 2024 and confirmed on 22nd October, 2024 by the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas, USA can be registered and enforced in Uganda?* - 5.1. As already highlighted in the background, on 8th January 2024, the Applicant filed an Original Petition in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship under Cause No. 24-0066-F425 before the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas, USA. The petition concerned the custody of Mukiiza Aiden Mushoka currently aged 9 years and Uwineza Niah Mushoka currently aged 5 years. The Respondent was notified of the hearing scheduled for 22nd January, 2024 on 18th January, 2024 and was offered the option to attend either in person or remotely. However, the Respondent did not appear, and


the Texas court proceeded with the hearing of the petition in his absence.

- 5.1.2. Following the hearing, the Texas court issued temporary orders under Cause No. 24-0066-F425, appointing the Applicant as the temporary sole managing conservator and the Respondent as the temporary possessory conservator of the children. The court also prohibited the Respondent from removing the children from Texas or the United States. - 5.1.3. Subsequently, different matters have been filed in different courts both in the USA in Texas and locally in Uganda. Interim Court orders have been issued and several orders in the Court in Texas as mentioned earlier in this decision. - 5.1.4. This Application seeks to have the orders dated 22nd January 2024 and confirmed on 22nd October, 2024 by the District Court of the 425th District of Williamson County, Texas, USA, registered and enforced in Uganda. It is also worth mentioning that on 7th February, 2025 final orders were further made in Cause No. 24-0066-F425 by the 425th Judicial District Court in Williamson County, Texas. - 5.1.5. **The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap.9**, governs the recognition and enforcement in Uganda of judgments given in foreign countries which accord reciprocal treatment to judgments given in Uganda. - 5.1.6. **Section 3 (1) of the Act** *(supra)* allows a judgment creditor to apply to the High Court for registration of a foreign judgment within six years, provided it has not been wholly satisfied and is enforceable in the original court. It provides as follows;

*"A person, being a judgment creditor under a judgment to which this Part of this Act applies, may apply to the High Court at any time*


*within six years after the date of the judgment or, where there have been proceedings by way of appeal against the judgment, after the date of the last judgment given in those proceedings, to have the judgment registered in the High Court, and on any such application the court shall, subject to proof of the prescribed matters and to the other provisions of this Act, order the judgment to be registered; except that a judgment shall not be registered if at the date of the application—*

*a) it has been wholly satisfied; or*

*b) it could not be enforced by execution in the country of the original court."*

5.2. However, **Section 2 of the Act** *(supra)* requires the Minister to issue a statutory order extending the Act's application to a specific foreign country's superior courts. It provides that;

> *"(1) The Minister, if he or she is satisfied that, in the event of the benefits conferred by this Part of this Act being extended to judgments given in the superior courts of any foreign country, substantial reciprocity of treatment will be assured as respects the enforcement in that foreign country of judgments given in the superior courts of Uganda, may by statutory order direct—*

> *(a) that this Part of this Act shall extend to that foreign country; and (b) that such courts of that foreign country as are specified in the order shall be deemed superior courts of that country for the purposes of this Part of this Act.*

> *(2) Any judgment of a superior court of a foreign country to which this Part of this Act extends, other than a judgment of such a court given on appeal from a court which is not a superior court, shall be a judgment to which this Part of this Act applies, if -*


*(a) it is final and conclusive as between the parties to the judgment; and*

*(b) there is payable under the judgment a sum of money, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty; and*

*(c) it is given after the coming into operation of the order directing that this Part of this Act shall extend to that foreign country.*

*(3) For the purposes of this section, a judgment shall be deemed to be final and conclusive notwithstanding that an appeal may be pending against it, or that it may still be subject to appeal, in the courts of the country of the original court."*

- 5.3. A review of Uganda's statutory instruments reveals that no such ministerial order has been issued extending the Act to the United States of America (USA). Consequently, judgments from U. S. courts do not qualify for enforcement under the statutory Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) framework. - 5.4. However, I have observed that despite the absence of a statutory reciprocal arrangement, Ugandan courts have recognized and enforced foreign judgments under the common law principles of obligation, reciprocity, and comity. - 5.5. These doctrines provide a legal foundation for cross-border judicial cooperation, particularly in the absence of a formal treaty or statutory framework, such as in the case of Uganda and the United States. - 5.6. The doctrine of comity is based on mutual respect between sovereign states. It allows a court to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment not as a matter of strict legal obligation, but out of respect to the foreign court's authority and fairness in its proceedings**.** Courts apply comity where: the foreign court had competent jurisdiction over the

 matter and the parties, the proceedings were conducted fairly, with due process observed and enforcing the judgment would not be contrary to public policy in the recognizing jurisdiction.

- 5.7. The obligation theory treats a valid foreign judgment as creating a legal duty on the judgment debtor to comply, similar to a contractual obligation. This approach holds that once a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a party's liability, that decision should be respected and enforced in other jurisdictions unless there is a compelling reason not to do so, such as: Fraud in obtaining the judgment**,** Violation of natural justice**,** or a fundamental defect in jurisdiction**.** - 5.8. Under reciprocity**,** a foreign judgment will only be enforced if courts in the originating country would likewise enforce judgments from the enforcing country**.** This principle ensures mutual legal cooperation between jurisdictions. - 6.0. I have observed that in the case of *Christopher Sales & Carol Sales vs. Attorney General, Civil Suit No. 91 of 2011*, the High Court of Uganda enforced a U. S. judgment based on these principles, reasoning that a judgment creditor should not be deprived of the fruits of a duly obtained judgment from a competent court. The Trial Judge, Hon Justice Eldad Mwangusya *(as he then was)* stated that;

*"A judgment creditor armed with such a judgment should be allowed to realise the fruits of his judgment which should be afforded recognition by our courts in absence of a reciprocal arrangement."*

6.1. Similarly, in **Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113 (1895)***,* the U. S. Supreme Court held that foreign judgments should be recognized where they were rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, after a fair trial, and without evidence of prejudice or fraud. It was stated that;


"*Comity in the legal sense is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on one hand, nor a mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws…We are satisfied that where there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting a trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, and there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the system of laws under which it was sitting, or fraud in procuring the judgment, or any other special reason why the country of this nation should not allow its full effect, the merits of the case should not, in an action brought in this country upon the judgment be tried afresh, as on a new trial or appeal, upon the mere assertion of the party that the judgment was erroneous in law or in fact".*

6.2. Further, in **Mary Nyambura Mukuhu & Anor vs. Three Way Shipping Group Limited, Miscellaneous Cause No. 120 of 2023**, Hon. Justice Musa Ssekaana *(as he then was)* emphasized that it is not the duty of the court entertaining an application for registration of a foreign judgment to sit on appeal over the decision of the original court that delivered the judgment sought to be registered. The


respondent to the judgment sought to be registered is expected to have exercised its right of appeal under the laws of the foreign country. All the court to which the application is made needs to do is ensure that the applicant complies with the requirements of the courts on registration of foreign judgment.

- 6.3. I concur with the above opinions. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is evident that the orders sought to be enforced were issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States of America. The Respondent was properly served with the proceeding and accorded an opportunity to participate either physically or remotely, but did not do so. He later challenged the jurisdiction of the Texas court, which heard the challenge inter parties*,* reaffirmed its jurisdiction, and dismissed the request for a stay and reiterated the orders issued on 22nd January, 2024. - 6.4. Furthermore, during the final hearing held on 7th February, 2025 in Cause No. 24-0066-F425, from which the final orders were made, the Respondent was duly notified of the date, time, and venue but again failed to appear and wholly made default. - 6.5. There is no evidence of fraud or procedural inequity in the Texas proceedings. While the Respondent contended that he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defense, having been made aware of the matter only a few days before the hearing, he nonetheless had the option to appear remotely, inform the court of his concerns, and formally request additional time. His failure to do so cannot be used as a basis to challenge the validity of the Texas court's decision. - 6.6. There is also no evidence that the judgment in Texas was obtained irregularly or that an appeal has been filed.


- 6.7. It is also important to emphasize that in matters of child custody and welfare, the primary concern must always be the best interests of the children involved. Given the significance of maintaining stability in the children's lives, particularly where international jurisdictional issues are involved, it is crucial that the decisions made by a court with proper jurisdiction are respected and enforced. This ensures that the children's well-being is not jeopardized by protracted legal disputes, especially when there has already been a court determination in the jurisdiction where they were originally involved. The reinforcement of the orders reflects the importance of safeguarding the children's rights and interests above all else. - 6.8. Having concluded that judgments from U. S. courts do not qualify for enforcement under the statutory Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) framework, it remains necessary to examine whether they nonetheless meet the basic requirements under the applicable Rules, that is, the **Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules, S. I 9-1.** - 7.0. I find that the Application meets the basic requirements under **Rule 4 (1) and (3) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules, SI 9-1.** These rules stipulate that an application for enforcement must be made *ex parte* by notice of motion, supported by an affidavit containing: - i. A statement made according to the deponent's best knowledge and belief that the applicant is entitled to enforce the judgment; that the judgment remains wholly or partially unsatisfied; that it is enforceable by execution in the original court; and that registration in Uganda would not be liable to be set aside under Section 5 of the Act.


- ii. A statement detailing any interest accrued on the judgment amount under the law of the originating country up to the time of registration. - iii. The full name, title, trade or business, and last known residence or place of business of both the judgment creditor and judgment debtor, as far as known. - iv. The amount payable under the judgment, expressed in Uganda Shillings and converted at the prevailing exchange rate. - 7.1. The present Application was filed by Notice of Motion (*ex parte*). In paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support, deponed by Shadia Nalweyiso Mutayaba, the affidavit confirmed that these orders remain entirely unsatisfied, particularly regarding child support payments due from the Respondent. It was further stated that the orders are enforceable in the original court and, if registered in Uganda, would not be liable to be set aside. - 7.2. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit specified that, at the time of filing, the outstanding amount due to the Applicant was **USD 17,239.5** (Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and Five Cents), equivalent to **UGX 63,272,930.1/=**, based on the Bank of Uganda exchange rate as of 25th October, 2024. - 7.3. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit provided details of the judgment debtor's full name, title, trade or business, and last known residence and business address. The judgment creditor's details were not provided but this in my view is not fatally defective. - 7.4. The Application also satisfies **Rule 4 (4) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules**, which requires that the affidavit be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment from the original court, authenticated by its seal.


- 7.5. The Applicant submitted to this Honorable Court a certified true copy of the temporary orders issued in Cause No. 24-0066-F425 by the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. These orders were certified on 22nd January, 2024 and bear the court's official seal on every page. - 7.6. In a supplementary affidavit filed on 1st November, 2024, the Applicant submitted a certified true copy of the Texas court's findings of fact, which denied the Respondent's plea to the jurisdiction, motion to decline jurisdiction, and motion to stay in Cause No. 24-0066-F425*.* These findings were issued on 22nd October, 2024 and certified on 29th October, 2024. - 7.7. The Applicant further provided this Honorable Court with a certified true copy of the final orders in Cause No. 24-0066-F425, issued by the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas, on 7th February, 2025 and certified on the same day. - 8.0. In light of the foregoing, this Application is allowed with the following orders: - *a)* The Orders issued on 7th February, 2025 by the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas, USA, under Cause No. 24-0066-F425, shall be registered and executed by this Honorable court. - *b)* The Respondent is granted liberty to file an application to have the registration set aside within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Execution of the judgment shall not issue until the expiry of this period.


- *c)* The Orders issued by the Family Division of the High Court of Uganda on 10th September, 2024 directing the Applicant to return the children to Uganda are hereby set aside. - *d)* Each party shall bear its own costs.

*Dated, Signed and delivered electronically this 17th day of March, 2025.*

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ CELIA NAGAWA JUDGE**