[2024] UGHCFD 82

#### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

#### **(FAMILY DIVISION)**

### **DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 158 OF 2019**

### **DAVID SIRIRI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PETITIONER**

#### **VERSUS**

#### **LIZ MIRIAM NAMUKOSE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

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

### **1.0 Introduction:**

- 1.1 David Siriri (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") filed Divorce Cause No. 158 of 2019 on 13th November, 2019 against Liz Miriam Namukose (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") seeking the following orders; - **a) The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved.** - **b) The Respondent retains custody of the issues and the Petitioner be granted unlimited access rights to the children with an order for shared responsibility to care for the children.** - **c) An order that the Respondent is only entitled to a 30% share in the matrimonial home.** - **d) No order as to costs.** - 1.2. The Respondent filed a Reply to the Petition on 19th December, 2019 and a rejoinder to the Petition on 20th January, 2020.


### **2.0. Representation.**

2.1. The Petitioner was represented by Learned Counsel Gerald Nuwagira of M/s. Nuwagira, Tusiime Advocates while the Respondent was represented by Senior Counsel (SC) Dr. Harriet Diana Musoke of M/s. Musoke & Co. Advocates.

### **2.0 Background of the Petition.**

2.1. At the time of filing this Petition, the Petitioner was residing in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, with an address in Kyanja, Nakawa Division, while the Respondent, resides in Makerere II, Zone C, Kampala District. The parties solemnized their marriage at St. Francis Chapel, Makerere University, on 7th August 1999. They lived as husband and wife at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Kampala District. They were blessed with four children now aged 23, 21, 18 and 14 years old. The Petitioner seeks divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the Respondent subjected him to verbal abuse, denied him conjugal rights, and in 2016, changed the locks on their matrimonial home, preventing him from access. Since 2016, the parties have been living apart.

## **3.0 Scheduling**

- 3.1. A Joint Scheduling Memorandum was filed on 1st October, 2020. The Petitioner filed his trial bundles on 8th October, 2020 and 3rd November, 2023 while the Respondent filed her bundle on 24th March, 2023. - 3.1.1. The Petitioner presented 7 witnesses and they all filed witness statements. The witnesses were namely; the Petitioner (PW1), Kananura Joshua (PW2), Balamu Waniaye (PW3), Sam Kikawa (PW4), Aaron Muyaka (PW5), Isa Isabirye (PW6), Charles Mugoda (PW7), and


Reste Babirye (PW8) whose witness statement was expunged when she did not appear in court. The Respondent (DW1) was her only witness.

# **3.2. Issues for Court's determination.**

- 1. Whether there was a valid marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent? - 2. Whether there are grounds for divorce? - 3. Who should provide for the educational, medical and maintenance of the children of the marriage? - 4. What share of the properties in issue in this Petition is the Respondent entitled to? - 5. What remedies are available to the parties?

# **3.3. Evidence.**

# **Petitioner's Evidence.**

- 1. Marriage Certificate marked **"PEX1".** - 2. School Fees receipts collectively marked **"PEX2".** - 3. Medical receipts marked **"PEX3".** - 4. Copies of Email exchanges collectively marked **"PEX4".** - 5. Copies of School Fees receipts marked **"PEX5".** - 6. A copy of the land sale agreement marked **"PEX6".** - 7. A copy of the agreement of the village home together with an English translation marked **"PID1".** - 8. A copy of the testimonial clarifying end of employment marked **"PEX7".** - 9. Annual returns for Ebenezer Commodities and Service Ltd marked **"PEX8".** - 10. Letter dated 10th February, 2023 to Mr. Levand Turyomurugyendo marked **"PEX9".** - 11. Summary of payments towards education of a daughter aged 23 years old marked **"PEX10".**


- 12. Summary of payments towards education of a child aged 21 years old marked **"PEX11".** - 13. Summary of payment towards education of a son aged 18 years old marked **"PEX12".** - 14. Support towards Kitibwa Adonai marked **"PEX13".** - 15. A statement of search for land at Block 15 Plot 683 marked **"PID2".** - 16. Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 1988 Bukoto marked "PID 3".

### **3.4. Respondent's Evidence.**

- 1. Marriage Certificate marked **"PEX1".** - 2. School fees payments for Kitibwa Adonai marked **"REX1".** - 3. School fees payments for Hope Kisakye marked **"REX2".** - 4. Expenses towards Kirabo Deborah marked **"REX3".** - 5. Medical reports for Kirabo Deborah marked **"RID1".** - 6. Search report for Makerere land Block 27 Plot 532 marked **"R1D2".** - 7. Search report for Bukoto land Block 213 Plot 1988 marked **"RID3".**

## **4.0. Locus in Quo Proceedings.**

- 4.1. This court conducted a locus visit guided by Practice Direction No.1 of 2007 issued to provide guidelines to litigants, counsel, and judicial officers on how locus in quo proceedings should be handled. **(See; Bongole Geoffrey & Others Versus Agnes Nakiwala CACA No. 0076/2015).** - 4.1.1. The locus in quo proceedings were conducted on 12th July, 2024 starting at 9:46 a.m at Kibuga Block 27 Plot 532 land at Makerere West Zone and then at Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 1988 land at Bukoto in Namuli zone, Kampala District as provided under **Order 18 Rule**

**14 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I 71-1** which provides that the Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise. The parties, their witnesses and advocates were present during the said proceedings.

- 4.1.2. Locus in quo proceedings form part of this trial. All rules observed in court were adhered to. The purpose of locus proceedings was to enable the court to check on the evidence given by the witnesses in court, and not to fill in the gaps in their evidence for them. **(See Fernandes Versus Noroniha [1969] EA 506/ De Souza Versus Uganda [1967] EA 784/ Yeseri Waibi Versus Edisa Byandala [1982] HCB 28 and Nsibambi Versus Nankya [1980] HCB 81).** - 4.1.3. During the locus in quo proceedings, this Court had the opportunity to directly observe and assess two out of three of the matrimonial properties that are at the center of this dispute. This visit allowed the Court to verify the evidence previously presented by the various witnesses and obtain a tangible context to the oral testimonies that were given. - 4.1.4. This Court was able to independently observe the property comprised in Kibuga Block 27 Plot 532 at Makerere. The property comprises a two-story building consisting of a two in one apartment with a small compound and parking space at the front. The Respondent currently resides on the first floor of the house. The first-floor unit includes a kitchen, dining room, sitting room, bathroom with a toilet, and three bedrooms. The first floor has a separate, distinct entrance from the ground floor. The layout on the ground floor mirrors that of the first floor with its own entrance as well. The ground floor was observed to be very dusty and appeared to have been unused for a significant period of time, possibly years. Additionally, the ground floor contained


various dusty household items, including a sofa set, boxes, a microwave, shoes, and other objects that appeared not to have been used for a very long time. At the back of the house, there was a dog house and an outdoor kitchen, though both were out of use.

4.1.5. This court also went to the property located at Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 1988, in Namuli Zone, Bukoto, Kampala for locus visit and observed that the land is gently sloping and currently undeveloped, primarily used for agricultural purposes. There were banana plantations and cassava crops growing on the plot. A trench was situated on the right hand side of the plot, sloping downwards. There was a football pitch bordering the property at the lower edge. A fenced house was located on the left hand side of the plot, sloping downwards. The plot's front was bordered by an unfenced bungalow, which could easily be mistaken as part of the plot, although it is not. The property is accessed via an entrance marked by a Jackfruit tree, situated near the house of one Specioza and Nalongo. The Petitioner explained that there was initially no clear access road, but he negotiated with a neighbor, a coffee exporter, to create a 7-foot wide access road. That an agreement for this access road exists separately from the land transaction itself. The Petitioner further explained that part of the land, measuring 55 decimals, originally had graves, which were later removed at his expense. Six graves, including one of an elderly woman considered a "Ssenga" by the local community, were relocated to Bugerere. That the Petitioner handled the costs of exhumation and reburial. The Petitioner stated that the land had previously been contested in court. The Petitioner clarified that there were two agreements related to the property, one with the Late Abdallah Ssemakula for the section of the land with the graves and another with Ssekimwanyi, the son to Abdallah Ssemakula, for the other part of the


land. The total consideration for the land was UGX 9,000,000/- (Uganda Shillings Nine Million only) for the part with graves and UGX 16,000,000/- (Uganda Shillings Sixteen Million only) for the other part, which was considered "clean." The Petitioner also stated that the payment for the land was made in cash, with part of the amount paid directly to the Late Abdallah Ssemakula in Bugerere and the remainder to Ssekimwanyi.

4.1.6. The locus inspection provided crucial insights into the physical state and condition of the supposed two out of the three matrimonial properties, contributing significantly to the Court's understanding of the evidence presented and the overall context of the case.

### **4.2. Burden of Proof**.

4.2.1. In all civil matters like the present Petition, he who alleges bears the burden to prove his/her case on a balance of probabilities. The Petitioner in this case therefore has the burden to prove the facts alleged by him in the Petition by virtue of **Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap.8. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8** provides that;

*"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of the facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist".*

### **4.3. Written Submissions.**

4.3.1. The Petitioner filed written submissions in resolution of this Petition on 31st July, 2024. The Respondent filed on 23rd August, 2024 and a rejoinder was filed on 2nd September, 2024. This Court has perused, analyzed and considered all the parties written submissions, pleadings and all documents submitted in the determination of this Petition.


### **4.4. Divorce Proceedings.**

- 4.4.1. Under **Section 30 of the Divorce Act, Cap.144**, divorce proceedings are instituted by way of Petition stating distinctly the facts on which the Petition is based. The Petitioner shall verify the Petition as if it were a plaint and state that there is not any collusion or connivance between the Petitioner and the Respondent. This provision was complied with. - 4.4.2. The Petitioner at the time of filing resided in Abidjan, Ivory Coast and at Kyanja in Nakawa Division. The Petitioner proved that he was domiciled in Uganda at the time he presented this Petition as is required under **Section 2 (a) of the Divorce Act, Cap. 144.**

# **5.0. Court's Determination.**

- **5.1. Issue One: Whether there was a valid marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent?** - 5.1.1. It was an agreed fact that the Petitioner and Respondent contracted a valid church marriage in Uganda which was solemnized at St. Francis Chapel, Makerere University on 7th August, 1999. This was supported by evidence of the marriage certificate marked as **"PEX1"**. *See* **Section 31 of the Marriage Act, Cap. 146** which sets out the law on proof of existence of a Marriage basically on a certificate of marriage filed in a Marriage Register Book. - 5.1.2 This court therefore finds that a valid marriage exists between the Petitioner and the Respondent. A marriage certificate of the Petitioner and Respondent was adduced in Court.

## **5.2. Issue Two: Whether there are grounds for divorce?**


# 5.2.1. **Section 4 of the Divorce Act, Cap. 144** provides for the grounds of Divorce and states that;

- 1. A husband or wife may apply, by petition to the court, for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that since the solemnisation of the marriage, his wife or her husband - a) d) ……..............

### **e) has been guilty of cruelty; or**

# **f) Has been guilty of desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards.**

- 5.2.2. Typically, for a Petitioner to be issued a Decree Nisi, the Court must be satisfied that the grounds as presented have been proved. That no connivance or condonation or collusion with the Respondent has been undertaken in presenting the Petition and finally that the Petitioner is not guilty of adultery, or unreasonable delay in presenting the Petition or cruelty to the Respondent, or desertion or separation or other misconduct. *See Section 8 of the Divorce Act, Cap. 144.* - 5.2.3. The Petitioner's Petition is based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In response, the Respondent, in her written submissions, asserts that she also filed a cross-petition citing the grounds of adultery and cruelty. - 5.2.4 Upon reviewing the document filed by the Respondent on 19th December, 2019 titled "Reply to the Petition/Cross Petition", I have noted an issue of form and substance. While the document is titled as a "cross petition", a review of the said document reveals that the content therein is solely a reply to the Petition, without any clear demarcation of the initiation of a cross-petition. The Court finds it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain where the cross petition begins or ends within the document. In light of this, the Court is of the opinion

 that the procedural rules governing counterclaims, outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules, S. I. 71-1, are applicable to cross petitions. The Respondent was therefore expected to comply with the formal requirements for filing a counterclaim for her cross petition under these rules. As the document filed by the Respondent does not meet the necessary criteria to be considered a valid cross petition, the Court will treat it as a reply to the Petition only. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Petitioner in the Petition will be the only grounds for consideration in this case and I will go ahead and consider them herein below.

## 5.3. *Cruelty.*

- 5.3.1. The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the **Divorce Act, Cap. 144.** Cruelty may be defined as the wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb and health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. **[\(Russel v. Russel\)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144300667/) [(1897) AC 395** - 5.3.2. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is *physical*, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is *mental*, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. - 5.3.3. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. - 5.3.4. The agreed upon consensus by the courts is that the behaviour complained of must be "grave and weighty, not to be confused with actions resulting from the ordinary "wear and tear" of every marriage.

It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture, or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure Divorce.

- 5.3.5. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. - 5.3.6. This court therefore has to determine whether or not the behavior complained about by the Petitioner is of a type or level that makes it unreasonable to expect the Petitioner to live with the Respondent. - 5.3.7. The Petitioner provided details of the Respondent's cruelty under paragraphs 9 to 23 of his witness statement filed on 8th October, 2020. He stated that the Respondent's disrespect and cruel behaviour started very early in their marriage with unnecessary verbal abuse against the Petitioner and constant arguments. That in the mid-2000's he was greatly distressed by the Respondent's behaviour and decided to drive her to her parent's home in Bugerere in Jinja. However, the parents counselled them and urged them to work things out. Unfortunately, the strife and dysfunction in the marriage continued and in 2006, the Petition decided to get a job outside Kampala in order to minimize his interaction with the Respondent. That the Petitioner left a lucrative job based in Kampala to take a less prestigious job in Isingiro District. That by 2010, their communication had broken down considerably to the extent that the Respondent refused to let the Petitioner know about their conception of their last born child until he


found out six months into her pregnancy when she could not hide the pregnancy bulge.

- 5.3.8. The Petitioner contends that he was denied conjugal rights by the Respondent without any justifiable cause as the Respondent bought and stacked boxes of condoms for his use and he refused the conditionality of condom-based marital sex. The Respondent contends that the worst came in early 2016, when with the help of the Police, the Respondent blocked him from accessing his home. That the Respondent went to the extent of changing all the locks on the gate, house and bedroom without giving the Petitioner copies of the keys. The Respondent also harassed and cruelly treated the Petitioner's brother and sister who were under his guardianship and care as both his parents were already deceased and she forced them out of the couple's matrimonial home. In order to ensure that the Petitioner never returned to the matrimonial home, the Respondent blocked him on the basis of false and fabricated accusations of kidnap and battery and the deliberate complaints to police that she was in danger. That on 27th August, 2018, when the Petitioner went to check on the children at their matrimonial home in Makerere, he saw the Respondent cleaning the compound and requested to talk to her but instead she hurled insults and abuses at him in front of the children. - 5.3.9. The Petitioner provided court with email exchanges between him and the Respondent dated 19th September, 2018 marked **"PEX4".** This court has reviewed the email correspondences and noted that the Respondent was apologizing to the Petitioner for hurting him and was requesting him to reopen the lines of communication between them. In response the Petitioner informed the Respondent that her insults on that particular day were not an isolated incident but rather the new normal and he went ahead to ask the Respondent for a sober


termination of their relationship. The Petitioner in the said emails also told the Respondent that two years ago she asked him to leave and he obliged and he will not be comfortable having a militant, demeaning and clandestine partner.

5.3.10. To corroborate some of the incidences of cruelty averred by the Petitioner against the Respondent, PW2, a police officer at the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) stated that on 25th February, 2016 he received a call from his supervisor, the DPC of Wandegeya Police Division that a woman on telephone number 0772350882 was alleging that she was in danger from her husband. That the caller alleged assault and rape. That PW2 talked to the caller on the telephone number who identified herself as the Respondent herein and who directed him to her house. When he got to the Respondent's house, he found the gate closed and the Respondent informed him that she had locked herself inside. The Respondent informed PW2 that she was in danger from the Petitioner who she stated wanted to kill her therefore she could not share the same premises with him. The Respondent further stated that the Petitioner was not providing for the families' necessities, was abusive and that he had shifted from the matrimonial home on the first floor of the home in Makerere to the ground floor. The Respondent gave PW2 the Petitioner's telephone number which PW2 called and the Petitioner requested PW2 to wait for him to arrive. When the Petitioner arrived, he complained of being blocked from his house for reasons he did not understand, lack of knowledge of his wife's travels and that the Respondent was abusive and disrespectful towards him. The Petitioner also claimed that he had earlier tried to access the matrimonial home in Makerere to no avail because the gate padlocks were cut and locks changed by the Respondent.


- 5.3.11. The incidences of cruelty by the Respondent as against the Petitioner where further corroborated by PW3 who stated that he is a neighbor to the home of the parties who always asked him to do some work at their home like building, cleaning the compound, providing security, among others. That around April, 2016, he received a phone call from PW4 to go and break the house and gate padlocks at the couple's home in Makerere. Upon arrival at the couple's home, the Respondent instructed him to cut two gate padlocks and two house door padlocks and after completing the assignment the Respondent paid him UGX 15,000/-. Three days after breaking the locks, he met the Petitioner who complained to him about lack of access to his house and blamed him and the Respondent for the challenges he was facing. - 5.3.12. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended in her witness statement filed on 12th October, 2020 that during 2005 into 2006, the Petitioner started having extra marital affairs with a university girl with whom he begot a child in April, 2007. That between 2011 and 2014, the Petitioner had numerous affairs and the Respondent later found out that the Petitioner had established a home with one of his other mistresses with whom they also later had a child in February, 2014. That while the Petitioner was staying with his mistress, he did many psychologically traumatizing things that affected the Respondent and the children. The Petitioner stopped eating food prepared by the Respondent and cut off his relatives from the Respondent and the children. The Petitioner mistreated the Respondent, stopped providing for her and the children and he would spend all his money on his mistresses. The Respondent stated that when she was still a signatory to the company account of their company by name & style Ebenezer Commodities & Services Ltd, the Petitioner wanted to withdraw money from the account and when the Respondent hesitated to sign for the


withdraw, the Petitioner battered her in front of the children and the people in the house at the time. That in 2016, the Petitioner locked the Respondent out of their matrimonial home and she had to stay at the neighbor's house until she reported the matter to police.

- 5.3.13. The Respondent did not, however, provide court with any evidence in support of her averments against the Petitioner. - 5.3.14. Therefore, based on the evidence presented by the Petitioner, it is clear that the parties have been unable to maintain a stable and respectful relationship, but it was marked by consistent and escalating cruelty. This has led to a breakdown in their relationship to the point where it is no longer reasonable to expect them to live together. The mutual hostility, lack of communication, and physical barriers have left both parties in a state of distress and unhappiness to the point that both parties agreed in their Joint Scheduling Memorandum that they want the marriage between them dissolved. - 5.3.15. In light of these circumstances, it is clear that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has reached a point of irreconcilable differences between the parties. Marriage, by its very nature, is meant to be a partnership based on love, respect, and mutual support. It is clear that both parties can no longer coexist in a manner conducive to marital harmony. The persistent discord and antagonism have led to significant harm to each other's mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing. - 5.3.16. Accordingly, the court finds that the ground of cruelty has been satisfactorily proved by the Petitioner warranting dissolution of the marriage.

## 5.4. *Desertion without justifiable cause.*

5.4.1. In family law, the elements that constitute desertion include: (1) cessation of cohabitation, (2) the lapse of a statutory period, (3) the


intention to abandon, (4) lack of consent from the abandoned spouse, and (5) the absence of spousal misconduct that would justify the abandonment. The case of **Perry vs. Perry [1952] 1 All ER 1075** is instructive that desertion does not necessarily mean and constitute withdrawal from a place, but constitutes withdrawal from a state of things.

- 5.4.2. It was an agreed fact in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum of the parties that they have lived separate lives for over six years prior to the filing of this Petition. This brings it to over eleven years now. The prolonged period of separation, by itself, is indicative of the breakdown of the marital relationship. The parties have, in essence, ceased cohabiting for over two years which is the statutory period in Uganda, meeting the first and second element of desertion. - 5.4.3. The Petitioner testified in his witness statement that in 2016, the Respondent blocked his access to the family home. The Respondent changed all the locks on the gate, house, and bedroom doors, and did not provide the Petitioner with keys to the house. The Petitioner stated that the Respondent's actions were aimed at denying him access to the matrimonial home and the shared marital space. - 5.4.4. The Respondent on the hand, in her testimony, contended that it was the Petitioner who deserted her in August 2016, following an argument in which the Petitioner allegedly abandoned her on the roadside. The Respondent's account, however, does not provide a clear or coherent explanation for the events resulting into this disagreement between the parties. - 5.4.5. The Respondent's actions to wit; blocking the Petitioner from accessing the matrimonial home, changing the locks, and withholding keys suggest that the Respondent's actions appear to have contributed to the Petitioner's desertion.


5.4.6. Additionally, the testimony of PW2 supports the Petitioner's position. PW2 testified that on 25th February, 2016, following a distress call from the Respondent alleging that she was in danger from the Petitioner, he went to the couple's matrimonial home in Makerere. There, he found the gate locked, and the Respondent informed him that she had locked herself inside out of fear for her safety from the Petitioner. This incident is significant because it demonstrates that the Respondent took active steps to prevent the Petitioner from accessing her and their shared space.

Moreover, PW4 also testified that in 2016, the Respondent requested him to change the locks on the Respondent's bedroom door, a clear indication that the Respondent sought to sever any ongoing physical and emotional connection with the Petitioner. This further corroborates the Petitioner's assertion that the Respondent was actively seeking to end the relationship.

PW3 also testified that in April 2016, he was instructed by the Respondent to cut the padlocks on the gates and doors of the marital home. After doing so, the Petitioner expressed frustration over his lack of access to the home.

- 5.4.7. All the above testimonies collectively show on balance of probability that it is most likely the Respondent's actions of changing locks and denying access of the Petitioner to the matrimonial home that caused the cessation of cohabitation and desertion. - 5.4.8. This Court therefore finds that the Petitioner has proven the ground of desertion as the cessation of cohabitation was not mutual, but rather, it was driven by the Respondent's actions, including the denial of the Petitioner to have access to the family home and changing of the locks.

Upon the Petitioner proving both grounds of cruelty and desertion, I


hereby dissolve the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

- **6.0. Issue 3: Who should provide for the educational, medical and maintenance of the children of the marriage?** - **6.1.** Under **Article 31 (4) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda**, it is the right and duty of parents to care for and raise their children. This constitutional provision underscores the responsibility of both parents in ensuring the well-being and upbringing of their children. - 6.1.1. In the case of **Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi Vs. Harriet Kamakume** *(Supreme Court Civil Application No. 142/2009),* the Supreme Court stated that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to care for and raise their children. - 6.1.2. **Section 5 of the Children Act, Cap. 62** further elaborates on the parental duty of parents to provide for their children, including but not limited to, education, guidance, immunization, adequate diet, clothing, shelter, and medical care. - 6.1.3. A child is defined under **Section 2 of the Children Act** *(Supra)* to mean a person below the age of eighteen years. This definition is critical for determining the rights and responsibilities of parents with respect to their minor children. - 6.1.4. In accordance with **Section 3 (1) of the Children Act** *(Supra)* the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration whenever a state authority, court, tribunal, local authority, or any individual makes decisions regarding the upbringing of a child. - 6.1.5. According to the Joint Scheduling Memorandum filed with this Court on 1st October, 2020, it is an agreed fact that the Petitioner and the Respondent have four children aged 23, 21, 18 and 14 years old. This

 Court will therefore limit its consideration to the welfare of the youngest child aged 14 years old.

- 6.1.6. The Petitioner asserts in paragraph 22 of his witness statement that, throughout the period of separation from the Respondent, he has consistently provided for the education, medical needs, subsistence, social needs, and psychological support of the children. The Petitioner submitted school fee receipts **(PEX2 and PEX5)** and medical receipts **(PEX3)** as evidence of this support. These receipts are for the children 3 older children only. - 6.1.7. Additionally, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his support for youngest child through **"PEX13"** which documents general maintenance, including clothing and food. - 6.1.8. In contrast, the Respondent contends in paragraph 34 of her witness statement, that the Petitioner has always treated the youngest child differently from their other children. Specifically, she claims that the Petitioner does not pay his school fees, has failed to provide for his medical care, and has not purchased clothing for him, unlike their other children. Furthermore, she alleges that before COVID 19 lockdown, the Petitioner instructed the youngest son not use the car that his siblings used for school. - **6.2.** In response, the Petitioner stated in paragraph 13 of his witness statement that the Respondent never informed him of her pregnancy with their last born until six months later, when the pregnancy became evident. He claims that, to this day, he has never received an explanation as to why the Respondent concealed the pregnancy from him, though he has never denied the child's paternity. - 6.2.1. To put this matter to rest and to remove any would be doubts, on 3rd November, 2023, this Court ordered a DNA paternity test to be conducted on the Petitioner and his last born, which was to be


conducted by the Government Analytical Laboratories, Wandegeya, and MBN Laboratories. The DNA test results, submitted to this Court in a report dated 29th January, 2024 confirmed that the Petitioner is indeed the biological father of the said last born. As such, him being a biological son to the Petitioner is entitled to the same educational opportunities, medical care, and maintenance as the other children of the marriage.

- 6.2.3. The Respondent has provided evidence in the form of **"REX1"** indicating that she has been the one responsible for the payment of school fees for their last born. She has also submitted proof of paying school fees for their daughter, covering medical expenses and providing for other expenses for first born daughter. - 6.2.4. In his Petition, the Petitioner indicated that the issues related to the marriage and the children have always been under the custody of the Respondent in Uganda, and he does not intend to alter this arrangement as it serves the best interests of the children. It was also agreed under the joint scheduling memorandum that the issues of the marriage shall remain in the custody of the Respondent with the Petitioner having unlimited access to them. - 6.2.5. The Respondent, in paragraphs 23 to 25 of her witness statement stated that in 2017, the Petitioner made the decision to enroll the three children now aged 23, 21 and 18 years old in international schools without consulting her. In August 2018, the Petitioner allegedly had a disagreement with second born and as a result, refused to pay her school fees. The Respondent claims she was unable to pay for the child's tuition at the international school and that the Petitioner did not provide her with the necessary school supplies. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that second born sought counseling to cope with these challenges, which the Respondent believes caused psychological


strain on her. The Respondent also indicated that this lack of communication and cooperation between the parents continues to affect the children psychologically, causing uncertainty and distress.

- 6.2.6. The Respondent's allegations of psychological distress are supported by her claims that the second born is often anxious about school enrollment while the 3rd born has become withdrawn and prefers isolation. The Respondent also mentioned that last born feels unloved and often appears absent-minded at school. - 6.3. This Court opines that it is important that both parents treat their children equally, ensuring that no child is favored over the other. Preferential treatment, whether in terms of resources, attention, or emotional care can have a detrimental effect on a child's emotional and psychological development. Such unequal treatment may lead to longterm harm. Parents, therefore, have an obligation to ensure that all their children are treated equally and fairly. - 6.4. The last born, has no involvement in the challenges or disputes between his parents. The difficulties surrounding the divorce, including past issues between the parties, must not affect him emotionally, psychologically, or socially. As his parents navigate these proceedings, every effort must be made to shield him from undue stress or conflict. It is in his best interest that both parties focus on his well-being, providing him with love, support, and stability during this difficult time. He deserves to grow up in an environment where he feels safe, cared for, and free from the tension and strain of these proceedings. - 6.5. The Petitioner has expressed a commitment to providing for and supporting his child, and this intention should be welcomed, recognized and supported. Both parents must now focus on working


together, in the best interests of the child, to ensure his upbringing is as smooth and loving as possible.

- 6.6. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that it is in the best interest of last born child that the Petitioner provides for his educational and medical needs including all his scholastic materials and other school necessities like transportation to and from school just like the Petitioner has done for all the other issues of the marriage until completion of his first university degree. The Respondent on the other hand shall continue to be responsible for the daily maintenance of the child, as it was mutually agreed by the parties that the children remain in her custody. That way, each party has a parental role to play in his life. - 6.7. It is crucial to acknowledge that having custody of a child is not an easy task. A parent who assumes responsibility for a child's care is fully dedicated to the child's needs, day in and day out. Custody involves more than just physical presence; it demands emotional investment, constant attention, and the provision of care in every aspect of the child's life. Therefore, both parents will be involved as herein above determined. - **7.0. Issue Four: What share of the properties in issue in this petition is the Respondent entitled to?** - 7.1.1. Sharing "the fruits of the matrimonial partnership" could be very strenuous on the couple. "Equal sharing" and the "Sharing entitlement" in **Charman vs. Charman (No. 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503,** Court of Appeal thought "those phrases should describe more than a yardstick for use as a check" and took it "to mean that property should be in equal proportions unless there is a good reason to depart from such proportions'. But what property – and what constitutes "good reasons?


- 7.1.2. Matrimonial (sometimes known as "marital acquest' or "family assets") and non-matrimonial property can be distinguished, although the sharing principle applies to both matrimonial and non- matrimonial assets, it does so in different ways. - 7.1.3. Lord Nicholls' definitions of matrimonial property as held in *Miller Vs Miller and McFarlane Vs McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24;* as assets "acquired during marriage otherwise than by inheritance or gift". The financial product of the parties common endeavor, this might involve money that was received after separation but which was the product of work done during the marriage. Even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, [the parties' matrimonial home] usually has a central place in any marriage. So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. - 7.1.4. Lady Hale's definitions of matrimonial property in the above case is family assets of a capital nature [such as] the family home and its contents. Other assets which were obviously acquired for the use and benefit of the whole family, such as holiday homes, caravans, furniture, insurance policies and other family savings. Family businesses or joint ventures in which they both work. - 7.1.5. Under both Lady Hale's and Lord Nicholls' formulations, the matrimonial home is normally a matrimonial asset. - 7.1.6. In other ways, these definitions are slightly different. Whereas Lord Nicholls defines non-matrimonial property as that which the parties "bring with them into the marriage or acquire by inheritance or gift during the marriage' (a narrow definition of non-marital property), Lady Hale takes the view that "in a matrimonial property regime which still starts with the premises of separate property, there is still some scope for the party to acquire and retain separate property which is not automatically to be shared equally between them.


- 7.1.7. Non- matrimonial property is an unmatched contribution to the marriage by one party and its source is usually outside the marriage; a pre-owned asset, or an inheritance, for example. This potentially gives reason to depart from equality in favour of the contributor. Whether the court actually does this depends on the following; in a short marriage, the contribution of pre-owned assets that are then matrimonialised (such as a house that becomes the matrimonial home) are more likely to justify a departure from equal sharing on the basis of unmatched contribution even though the asset is now matrimonial. Conversely, it *may* be unfair to give much weight to a contribution of non-matrimonial property in the case of a long marriage. This is particularly the case if "over time matrimonial property of such value has been acquired as to diminish the significance of the initial contribution by one spouse of non-matrimonial property". - 7.1.8. Article 31(1) (b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended) provides for equal rights of spouses and states that; "A man and a woman are entitled to marry only if they are each of the age of eighteen years and above and are entitled at that age- *(b) to equal rights at and in marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.* - 7.1.9. In the case of **Ambayo Joseph Waigo Versus Aserua Jackiline Civil Appeal No. 0101 of 2015** *His Lordship Justice Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, JA* at page 16 discussed the general principles as provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda which court must always be mindful about when dealing with property rights of spouses and cited the case of **P N NO versus Z W N (Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2014)** as held by Waki, Azangalala & Kiage, JJA. Which I entirely appreciate. - 7.1.10. The court has considerable discretion to consider, in light of the above, whether to reflect non-matrimonial assets in the outcome of the case at all, and, if so, how?


7.1.11. The parties presented three (3) properties in dispute and they will be discussed in detail herein below.

## **7.2.** *Kibuga Block 27 Plot 532 at Makerere II, Zone C.*

- 7.2.1. It is an agreed fact, as set out in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum, that the parties have a matrimonial home situated at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Zone C. The division of this property forms the core of the issues before this Court. - 7.2.2. The Petitioner contends that the matrimonial home, a two-in-one apartment unit, was constructed solely by him between the years 2001 and 2004, with no financial contribution from the Respondent. Based on this, the Petitioner argues that the Respondent is entitled to no more than 30% of the property's value. - 7.2.3. The Petitioner further argues, as outlined in his witness statement, that he single-handedly purchased the land at Makerere, utilizing a salary advance from his supervisor, Mr. Thomas Raussen, and a loan from Centenary Bank, Kabale Branch. To support this claim, he has presented the land sale agreement **(PEX6)**, which was drafted by Nampandu, Mugwanya, Muwawu & Co. Advocates. The sale agreement, dated 1st December, 2000 as well as the deed of variation dated 22nd December, 2000 to confirm that the Petitioner was the sole purchaser of the land. - 7.2.4. However, the Respondent disputes the Petitioner's assertion of sole ownership of this property. She has provided a search report dated 5th October, 2020, which shows that, on 29th November 2001, the land was jointly registered in both of the Petitioner and her names as joint tenants. This joint registration is highly significant, as it indicates that both parties mutually intended to own the property together and share


in its benefits. This evidence undermines the Petitioner's claim of sole ownership and suggests a shared intention to co-own the property.

- 7.2.5. The Respondent further asserts that she contributed to the development of the property. She states that in 2001, she received a provident fund of UGX 3,000,000/- from her previous employment with World Vision which she used to support the development of the land. Additionally, she claims to have contributed financially in other ways, including facilitating the securing of a loan from Centenary Bank by granting the Petitioner powers of attorney. Furthermore, the Respondent maintains that during the Petitioner's studies in the UK, they both continued to fund the construction of the house, with the Petitioner sending funds while abroad to enable her to complete the first floor of the house and make it habitable. According to the Respondent, her financial and personal contributions were crucial in completing the house, allowing the family to move in in July, 2004. - 7.2.6. This Court has observed that the parties were married on 7th August, 1999, and the property at Makerere was acquired in the year 2000, during the subsistence of their marriage.

Notwithstanding that the land sale agreement lists the Petitioner alone as the purchaser, it is noteworthy that both parties were jointly registered as owners of the property in 2001. This joint registration is a significant indication of their mutual intention to share ownership. Moreover, this court is cognizant of **Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap. 240,** which provides that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership. Therefore, the registration of both parties as joint tenants reinforces the argument that both intended to own the property together regardless of who made the greater financial contribution.


- 7.2.7. Besides, the Petitioner also stated in his witness statement dated 8th October, 2020 that after purchasing the land, he specifically requested Counsel Henry Nampandu to include his wife as a co-proprietor. When asked why, the Petitioner explained that it was to provide security and insurance for his family, especially his children, in case of his death. He noted his concern about the fate of widows and children who, in some cases, are evicted from the family home by relatives following the death of a husband. This explanation reveals the Petitioner's acknowledgment of the importance of joint ownership, further supporting the argument that both parties intended to own the property together. - 7.2.8. While the Petitioner asserts that his financial contributions to the acquisition and development of the property are greater, the Respondent's contributions, both direct and indirect, cannot be dismissed. These include her provident fund contribution, her facilitation of the loan from Centenary Bank, and her significant role in managing the property during the Petitioner's absence. Also, the fact that the Respondent continued to contribute financially to the development of the house, making it habitable while the Petitioner was studying abroad. Her personal and financial contributions were instrumental in completing the house, allowing the family to move in. - 7.2.9. Additionally, this Court must consider the practical aspects of the living arrangements. The Respondent has occupied the Makerere property continuously since July, 2004, when she moved in with her children. On the other hand, the Petitioner resided at the property until 2016, at which point he ceased living there, while the Respondent and the children continued to reside in the family home. The Respondent has been solely responsible for maintaining and caring for the property during the Petitioner's absence, demonstrating her ongoing

 involvement in the property's upkeep and her contribution to its preservation to date.

- 7.2.10. The invariable practice is to try to maintain a stable home for the children after their parents' divorce. Giving priority to the children's welfare should also involve ensuring that their primary carer is properly for, because it is well known that the security and stability of children depends in large part upon their security and stability of their primary carers. And, in all cases it is one of the paramount considerations, to endeavour to stretch what is available to cover the need of each home, particularly where there are young children involved. - 7.2.11. In light of the above, the Court finds it fair and equitable that the property should be shared equally unless there is a good reason not to do. There being none found by this court for this particular property I hereby determine that both the Petitioner and the Respondent are entitled to an equal (50/50) share of the matrimonial property at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Zone C. The Court also deems it just and reasonable for the Respondent to continue occupying the apartment block on the first floor, while the Petitioner shall take up residence in the apartment block on the ground floor which already houses some of his property. The parties are further directed to jointly utilize the common spaces of the premises, including the compound, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure peaceful co-existence and the quiet enjoyment of their respective portions.

## *7.3. Land and house at Kibuku District, located along Pallisa-Mbale Road at Yoyo Village, Goligoli Sub-county.*

7.3.1. The Respondent asserts that this was the very first property they purchased as a couple and on which they constructed their village


home, a three-bedroom house situated on the main road from Tirinyi to Pallisa Town. According to the Respondent, both parties agreed to build a village home, which they envisioned as a residence for their family during visits to the village. The Respondent states that the couple pooled together their savings and entrusted the Respondent's father-in-law, the Late Alikopo Papa with the task of purchasing the land on their behalf, given his knowledge and familiarity with the locals of the area.

- 7.3.2. The Respondent explained that the agreement for the land purchase was made in her father-in-law's name, as he was a resident of the area and was directly involved in the negotiations. The Respondent emphasizes that, despite the land being registered in her father-inlaw's name, it was purchased with the couple's joint savings, and the intention was always for it to serve as a family home not as an ancestral property. - 7.3.3. The Respondent further clarified that during the construction of the country home, the couple had a clear understanding that the Petitioner's salary would be used for the construction costs, while her salary would be dedicated to the upkeep of the family. She asserts that during this period, other than providing for her own family, she also provided financial support for several of the Petitioner's siblings, including paying for their education, and made significant personal sacrifices to support both the Petitioner's family and her own household. - 7.3.4. The Respondent therefore demands that she should be compensated for her contributions to the acquisition and development of the village home, as she considers this property part of the matrimonial property. She notes that she was never informed by the Petitioner that the property was ancestral land and that she only learned of this claim


when the Petitioner filed for divorce and asserted that the property should not be classified as matrimonial property.

- 7.3.5. The Petitioner, however, asserts that the land on which the family home in Goligoli Trading Centre, Kibuku District, is situated is ancestral property, granted to him by his late father. He claims that after he declined an initial offer of 2 acres of land near his father's homestead, his father sourced an alternative plot of land near the main road, with access to electricity and water, where the home was later constructed. The Petitioner maintains that the land remains registered in the name of his late father and is thus clan property managed by the clan for the benefit of the clan members in his household who include his children. - 7.3.6. The Petitioner submitted a copy of the land sale agreement **(PID1)** for the land, dated 7th July, 2001 as evidence of the transaction between Mbuga George and the Petitioner's late father Alikipo Papa. The agreement indicates that the land measures half an acre and was purchased at a total consideration of UGX 1,000,000/- (Uganda Shillings One Million only) and the sale agreement was witnessed by among others the Petitioner. - 7.3.7. Charles Mugoda (PW7), the Petitioner's older brother testified that he is the heir to the family's ancestral property and is responsible for managing the properties distributed by his late father including this property which was allocated to the Petitioner. However, during crossexamination, PW7 admitted that the Goligoli property was not ancestral property and that their late father, Alikipo Papa, was buried on what he termed as the original ancestral land which is located approximately 1 kilometer from this property. PW7 also confirmed that the land was developed with a residential house whilst the parties were


married in the year, 2001 and that the Petitioner lives in the said house.

7.3.8. Bulamu Waniaye (PW3) further testified that in August 2002, the Petitioner, along with his late uncle Dr. Sam Nabulere, approached him to request him to construct a house on the Goligoli land. PW3 stated that the Petitioner provided all the materials and paid all labor costs associated with the construction. He also stated that no materials or labor costs were provided by any family members, indicating that the construction was fully financed by the Petitioner. However, during cross examination, PW3 confirmed that he interfaced with the Respondent at the construction site more than once when she occasionally delivered money from the Petitioner for the workers.

In light of the testimony provided by PW7 and PW3, it is clear that the Goligoli property is not ancestral land as alleged by the Petitioner and was developed during the course of the parties' marriage. While the land may have been purchased in the Petitioner's father names, it is clear that the Respondent played a role in its development. She is seen visiting the property, delivering money to the workers and then the sacrifices she makes to continue looking after the family while the Petitioner constructs what she believed was there village home cannot be ignored.

- 7.2.9 The Respondent contends in her written submissions that she should be accorded 40% share of the land and developments at Goligoli. That the property should be valued and the Petitioner pays her off as she is not interested in having the home and the land sold but all she wants is to be compensated for her contribution. - 7.2.10After carefully considering the evidence presented, including testimonies from the witnesses and the respective positions of both parties, this Court finds that the Goligoli property is, indeed, part of


the matrimonial assets, and the Respondent is entitled to compensation for her contributions thereon.

- 7.2.11This Court is satisfied that the Goligoli property was developed during the course of the marriage, and it was intended to serve as a family village home for the parties, a place where they would together stay with their children while they are in the village. Therefore, it is just and equitable for the Respondent be accorded 40% share of the land and developments at Goligoli. - 7.2.12The Court further orders that the property be valued by an independent valuer, and the Respondent's 40% share be paid out to her by the Petitioner in respect of this property. This will compensate the Respondent for her contributions and ensure that she is fairly compensated for her role in the acquisition and development of the property.

## 7.3 *Kyadondo Block 213 Plot 1988 Land at Bukoto in Namuli Zone, Nakawa Division, Kampala District*

- 7.3.1. The Respondent contends that between 2003 and 2005, she and the Petitioner jointly acquired the land at Bukoto, Kyadondo Block 213, Plot 1988, through a seed supply business. During this period, while the Petitioner collected seeds over the weekends, the Respondent managed their household responsibilities and took care of the children. The Respondent further claims that on several occasions, she assisted the Petitioner in the business by either picking him up or facilitating seed sales when he worked full-time in Mbarara. That although both parties contributed to the acquisition of the property, the Petitioner executed the land purchase agreements in his own name. When the Respondent questioned him about this, he reassured her that, as a married couple, the property was jointly owned. - 7.3.2. The Petitioner, however, testified that this property was not matrimonial property but his personal property and no longer belongs to him having


been sold to his sister, Esther Musenero. That the sale of this property to his sister began in 2018 and was finalized in 2020. He indicated that the proceeds from the sale were used to pay for the parties' children's school fees. The Petitioner also stated that the funds used to purchase the land came from his earnings from the seed business, as well as research grants and scholarships. The Petitioner provided this court with a copy of the land sale agreement for the land between himself and his sister Esther Musenero. It is dated 20th December, 2018 and is stated that the property at a total consideration of UGX 350,000,000/- of which UGX 150,000,000/- was paid at the execution of the agreement and the balance of UGX 200,000,000/- was to be paid within one year and that is by 20th December, 2019 after which the Petitioner would sign the transfer forms in favor of his sister.

- 7.3.3. On 30th April 2024, this Court issued an order for the Registrar of Titles to provide the registration history of the said land. According to the Registrar's records, the property measuring approximately 0.2210 *ha* was initially registered in the name of Abdalla Ssemakula on 8th January, 1997 vide Instrument No. KLA 185283. It was then transferred to the Petitioner, David Siriri, on 17th February, 2005 vide Instrument No. KLA 270248 and ultimately transferred into the names of Esther Musenero on 5th August, 2020 vide Instrument No. KCCA 00072526 at a consideration of UGX 380,000,000/- (Three Hundred Eighty Million Shillings Only). - 7.3.4. This court notes that the purchase price stated in the land sale agreement dated 20th December, 2018 differs from that stated in the transfer form. Also, the transfer of the property to Esther Musenero occurred during the divorce proceedings, which had been initiated by the Petitioner on 20th July, 2020. - 7.3.5. The Respondent argues that the transfer of the land to the Petitioner's sister was a deliberate attempt to defeat her claims to a share of the


property, thereby undermining her interest in what she asserts is a matrimonial asset.

- 7.3.6. Sam Kikawa (PW4), the LC1 Chairman of Namuli Zone, testified that the Petitioner was the original owner of the land from 2003 until he sold it to Esther Musenero in 2018. Kikawa also stated that he witnessed the agreement for the sale of the land to Esther Musenero in December 2018 and also stated that the land was cultivated and maintained by Ms. Reste Babirye, a neighbor who acted as the caretaker of the land. However, Kikawa admitted during cross-examination that he was not present during the original purchase or sale of the land and was only informed of these transactions. This court has also observed that he does not appear as a witness to the land sale agreement dated 20th December, 2018. - 7.3.7. The Respondent claims entitlement to a 40% share of the Bukoto property, arguing that her contributions to the acquisition, including her involvement in the seed supply business, the financial sacrifices made to support the family, and her non-monetary contributions (such as managing household duties and caring for the land) should be recognized. She stated that given that the land was sold for UGX 380,000,000/-, the Respondent believes she is entitled to 40% of this amount. - 7.3.8. The Petitioner, on the other hand, continues to dwell on the preliminary objection he raised concerning this property in his written submissions, arguing that the Respondent had departed from her original pleadings by introducing the Bukoto property in her witness statement and the joint scheduling memorandum. However, it is important to note that the then trial judge in this matter dismissed the said preliminary objection in his ruling that was delivered on 17th February, 2021. - 7.3.9. After reviewing the evidence and submissions of both parties, this Court finds that although the Bukoto land was registered solely in the Petitioner's name and later transferred to his sister, the property was


acquired during the course of the marriage and the Petitioner admitted during cross examination that the property was purchased using among others funds from the seed business. Therefore, the Respondent's contributions both financial (through the seed business) and nonfinancial (managing the household and maintaining the land during the Petitioner's absence) were integral to the acquisition and upkeep of the property. Furthermore, the Petitioner's explanation regarding the sale of the land to his sister raises questions about the timing and motivations behind the transaction, particularly given that the transfer occurred during the ongoing divorce proceedings.

7.3.10. In light of these considerations, this Court concludes that it is equitable to award the Respondent 20% of the sale value of the land stated in transfer form (UGX 380,000,000/-), recognizing her nonmonetary contributions and her interests in the seed project. This payment shall be made in full and final settlement of any claims the Respondent may have regarding the Bukoto property. This would give the parties a clean break.

## **8.0. Conclusion.**

- 8.1. In the final result, the Court orders as follows; - 1. A Decree Nisi is hereby pronounced dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent. - 2. The Respondent shall retain custody of the issues of the marriage and the Petitioner is granted unlimited access rights to the children. - 3. The Petitioner shall provide for the educational and medical needs to Kitibwa Adonia including all his scholastic materials and other school necessities and transportation to and from school until completion of his first university degree.


- 4. The Respondent provide for the daily maintenance of Kitibwa Adonia including catering for his food and clothing. - 5. The Petitioner and the Respondent are entitled to an equal (50/50) share of the matrimonial property at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Zone C. - 6. The Respondent shall continue occupying the apartment block on the first floor of the matrimonial property at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Zone C together with her children and the Petitioner shall take up residence in the apartment block on the ground floor of the property. - 7. The parties shall jointly utilize the common spaces of the matrimonial property at Kibuga Block 27, Plot 532, Makerere II, Zone C, including the compound, and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure peaceful co-existence and the quiet enjoyment of their respective portions of the property. - 8. The Respondent is accorded 40% share of the land and developments at the village home in Goligoli in Kibuku District. - 9. The property at Goligoli shall be valued by an independent valuer, and the Respondent's 40% share be paid out to her by the Petitioner in respect of this property. - 10. The Respondent is accorded 20% of the sale value of the land comprised in Block 213 Plot 1988 Land at Bukoto in Namuli Zone, Nakawa Division, Kampala District stated in land transfer form of UGX 380,000,000/-. - 11. No order as to costs.

*Dated, signed and delivered electronically tis 22nd day of November, 2024.*