As I noted above that is the only affidavit on the file though mention is made of the existence of another sworn affidavit by Stacy Luckey. As it is paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Mark Luckey is the only evidence in support of this application. Other than the assertion that the US government is not satisfied that the children have been adopted, there is no proof to support this stated position of the US government. There is no letter or other communication from the responsible US government department to that effect.
In fact one of the conditions for the grant of an adoption order vide Section 46 (1) (e) of the Children Act is that the applicant must satisfy the court that his country of origin will respect and recognise the adoption order. I presume that the applicants must have done so on their original application.
I am aware, of course, as was pointed out by Ms Dorothy Kisaka; learned counsel for the applicants, that this additional condition imposed by my brother, Kasule, J., is not directly spelt out in the Children Act. I suppose the judge for reasons that I am not able to read from the record imposed it as a condition to be fulfilled by the applicants which would be reviewed after 5 years. The 5 years are not yet over. There is one year more to run.
It could be possible to review this decision, as indeed the judge anticipated that there will be a review, for sufficient cause. The justification put forth by the applicants has unfortunately not been substantiated. No proof has been offered to this court that bears out the claim that the United States government has refused to process the citizenship
application for the children because of the condition for reports to be filed by the parents for 5 years. All that is before me is a bare assertion that the US government is not satisfied that the children have been truly adopted. There is no scintilla of evidence demonstrating that dissatisfaction.
Unfortunately neither the applicants nor the infants were in court when this application was heard. It was thus not possible for the void to be filled by oral evidence at the hearing of the application.
In the result I am satisfied that the applicants have failed to make out case for review of the adoption order. I decline to grant the orders sought.
Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala this 25th day of March 2009