[2025] UGHCFD 40

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (FAMILY DIVISION) DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 0218 OF 2021 DOROTHY GAZARWA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

### RONALD ODHIAMBO OMUTHE :::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

## **BEFORE HON. JUSTICE JOHN EUDES KEITIRIMA**

#### **JUDGMENT**

1]. The Petitioner stated in her petition that on the 29^th day of April 2016 she was lawfully married to the Respondent at Safari Park hotel officiated by St. Hellen's Parish Kenya. The certificate of marriage was tendered in Court and marked as exhibit P.1.

2]. The marriage was solemnized under the provisions of the marriage of the laws of Kenya. That after the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner was residing in Addis Ababa Ethiopia and working with UNHCR. The respondent was working for Refugee Education Trust

$1$ | Page

(RET) and staying at the Refugee Trust in Dadaab, Kenya but later moved to Mogadishu with Adam Smith International and was travelling between Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and England but his defacto home was in Addis Ababa.

3]. The Petitioner stated that there was one issue to the marriage namely Aaron Jayson Omuthe who was born on the 28^th June, 2017. The copy of the Child's birth certificate was tendered in Court and marked as exhibit $P.2.$

4. The Petitioner stated that she has solely provided support and maintenance for the said child and the respondent has made no initiative to provide support and maintenance. That the Respondents inactions has caused a lot of pain, embarrassment, distress and mental anguish to the petitioner.

5]. The petitioner stated that since the solemnization of the marriage the petitioner's relationship with the respondent has been unhappy owing to the respondent's desertion and abandonment, cruelty and lack of respect to the sanctity of their marriage.

$2$ | Page $\sim$

61. The Petitioner further stated that the respondent has acted in ways that have caused a lot of pain, trauma, distress, psychological and mental anguish to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the respondent is not a transparent person as at the date of marriage on 29^th April 2016 the respondent indicated he was 33 years old however a year later in 2017 the respondent upon the birth of the marriage issue indicated he was 29 years old. That this caused distrust and mental anguish to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner contended that she is a God fearing person and a very committed Christian and always desired to marry a person who was God fearing as well which the respondent proved to be before the marriage.

8]. That after the marriage, the respondent stopped praying with the petitioner or engaging in any religious activities with the petitioner.

That this was very disappointing to the petitioner and curtailed the petitioner's spiritual and religious growth which caused the petitioner a lot of pain, suffering and mental anguish.

9]. The Petitioner further contended that since the birth of their child, the respondent has only provided a contribution in 2018 towards the purchase

$3$ | Page

Inely

of clothes for the issue of the marriage with \$300, bought pampers and wipes for the child for one year and yet the respondent is gainfully employed and is in position to provide financial support and maintenance for the child.

10]. The Petitioner further stated that the respondent has never been interested to relate with or engage with their child since he was born and told the petitioner that he did not know how to bring up a child and has never taken any initiative to learn the same.

11]. The Petitioner further stated that despite several pleas from the petitioner, the respondent's mother and his grandmother, the respondent refused to take the petitioner to his parent's ancestral home to meet his family and relatives. That this caused the petitioner mental anguish and pain.

12]. The Petitioner further stated that the respondent then left the petitioner on grounds that the petitioner had discussed with other people that he was taking advantage of her which the petitioner denied.

Thinlay

That in August 2019 the respondent left and never came back to the house and the petitioner felt deserted by the respondent.

13]. The petitioner stated that the Kenya Courts have granted custody of the child to the petitioner.

The petitioner contends that as a result of cruelty and desertion on part of the respondent, their marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of reconciliation.

14]. The Petitioner stated that there was no collusion, connivance or condonation that exists between the petitioner and the respondent.

15]. The petitioner prayed for the following remedies; -

- The marriage between her and the respondent be dissolved. $(i)$ - The petitioner has full custody of their child and the $(ii)$ respondent be given visitation rights under the supervision of the petitioner. - (iii) That the petitioner solely provides for their child. - Any other remedy that this Court deems fit. $(iv)$

$5$ | Page

16]. Although the respondent had filed an answer to the petition, he never appeared in Court to enable the petitioner cross examine him on his answer to the petition. His evidence cannot therefore be relied on as it was not subjected to cross examination. I therefore take it that the petitioner's evidence is unchallenged.

17]. I will therefore grant the petition with the following orders; -

- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is $\mathbf{I}$ . hereby dissolved on the ground of desertion and a decree nisi will be issued to that effect. - The petitioner will have full custody of the child, Aaron Jayson $\Pi$ . Omuthe but the respondent will have visitation rights and have access to the said child after giving adequate notice of at least seven days to the petitioner. The visitation rights will be under the supervision of the petitioner. - The petitioner shall solely provide for the maintenance of the $\mathbf{III}$ . said child but the respondent is at liberty to make a contribution to the welfare of the said child.

6 | Page

- The respondent should hand over the personal effects of the IV. petitioner that were in Langata house in Nairobi to the Petitioner. - V. Each party will bear their own costs.

r

meg 2

Hon. Justice John Eudes Keitirima.

1/07/2027