Court name
High Court of Uganda
Judgment date
17 August 2012

Kayegi v Wadamba (Divorce Cause-2010/19) [2012] UGHC 174 (17 August 2012);

Cite this case
[2012] UGHC 174

 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 19/2010

SUSAN ANNET KAYEGI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONER

VERSUS

INNOCENT MARTIN WADAMBA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

 

BEFORE HON. MR. JIUSTICE B. KAINAMURA

Judgment

The Petitioner, Susan Annet Kayegi and the Respondent Innocent Martin Wadamba got legally married on 27th day of September 2003 at St. Austin’s Catholic Church Mbale. After the marriage, the Petitioner and the Respondent lived with each other producing three issues to wit:- Martin Wadamba, Maria Wadamba and David Martin Wambi Kibaale aged 8, 6 and 4 years respectively.

The Petitioner brings this Petition seeking for the following orders:-

a). A decree that the marriage of the parties be dissolved.

b) An order that the Petitioner gets custody of the children of the marriage.

c). An order for maintenance of the children.

d). An order that the properties acquired during the subsistence of the marriage be shared equally between the parties.

e). An order that the Respondent pays the costs of the Petition.

f). Other reliefs the Court deems fit.

The Petitioner raised the following grounds for the Petition namely- adultery, cruelty and desertion. The Respondent denied the allegations.

At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for the parties applied to be allowed to file a Joint Memorandum of Scheduling. This, they did and in the agreed facts both parties recognized that the marriage between the parties was strained and had irretrievably broken down and agreed the marriage be dissolved. Three issues were franed:

  1. Whether the properties listed in the Petition were acquired by the parties during the subsistence of their marriage.
  2. Whether the Petitioner should be granted custody of the children with maintenance.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

During the trial, the Petitioner abandoned the issue of custody and maintenance of the children and only sought access to the children. This in effect left only the issue of which properties were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and how they were to be shared. Counsel for the parties agreed to rely on affidavit evidence and call the deponents of the affidavits for cross examination.  

Mr. Obiro Ekirapa Isaac appeared for the Petitioner while Mr. Higenyi Michael together with Mr. Ngugo Mathew appeared for the Respondent.

I have indicated above that in the Joint Memorandum of Scheduling filed by the Counsel for the parties, one of the agreed facts was that the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent was strained and had irretrievably broken down and both parties wanted the marriage dissolved. Court does not have to look far to satisfy itself on this matter. During cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted that she had a four months old baby – Jordan Kitibwa, who is clearly not an issue of the marriage. This to my mind means either party has chosen to move on and Court is convinced that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and should be dissolved.    

From the evidence on record i find there was no collusion between the parties to the petition before filing the petition and further find that the Respondent did not condone the Petitioners acts of adultery.

The parties to the petition have also agreed that the three issues of the marriage shall remain in the custody of the Respondent who will provide all the maintenance. The Petitioner only sought access to the children which was agreed to by the Respondent. Court therefore has no reason to interfere with this arrangement and accordingly the Respondent shall have full custody of the children and the Petitioner shall have access to the children wherever they will be at reasonable hours and times of the day.

Court will now proceed to handle the remaining unresolved issue of the property. Paragraph 9 of the Petition sets out the details of the properties alleged to have been acquired by the parties during the subsistence of the marriage. These are:-

  1. Nasuti Hosanna Es