Nassazi v Walugembe (Divorce Cause 75 of 2020) [2023] UGHCFD 117 (5 October 2023)

## **+THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

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

### **[FAMILY DIVISION]**

### **DIVORCE CAUSE NO.75 OF 2020**

**NASSAZI RACHEAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONER**

#### **VERSUS**

**GEORGE MUSOMA WALUGEMBE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

**Before: Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka; (Judge).**

#### **Ruling**

## **Introduction:**

1. Nassazi Racheal (herein called **'the petitioner'**) petitions against George Musoma Walugembe (**'the respondent'** herein); seeking for a decree that; the marriage between herself and the respondent be dissolved; she be sole custody of the children of the marriage be granted to her and the respondent be granted reasonable access to the children; the respondent pays school fees, maintenance and all other costs in respect of the children; the property jointly acquired should be divided equally between them; the matrimonial home be registered in the names of the children Mathew Walugembe and Martha Ndagire Patience Tendo; a permanent prohibition ordering the respondent, his servants, agents from stalking, molesting and annoying the petitioner; such further and other reliefs as court deems fit.

#### **The case:**

- 2. The petitioner and the respondent cohabited since 2007 and produced two children named Martha Ndagire Patience Tendo born on 25th October 2008 and Mathew Walugembe born on 20th July 2010 before their marriage solemnised on the 22nd day of September 2013 at SDA Najanankumbi Kampala district; - 3. Since the solemnization of the marriage, their relationship has been stormy and unhappy owing to the respondent's cruelty, erratic and malevolent character, adultery, lack of respect to the sanctity of marriage and to the

petitioner; the respondent has acted in ways that have caused a lot of pain, distress and mental anguish to the petitioner. Most financial family obligations have been left to the petitioner; the respondent has never paid school fees for the issues of the marriage; it is the petitioner who has been paying the utility bills and house rent, medical bills, which has caused her mental pain and torture; she contends that the respondent has not been transparent concerning their joint business; he has been dishonest to the petitioner concerning his age, religion, names during courtship, and his other biological children born out of marriage;

4. Since the 29th of July 2019, the petitioner vacated the matrimonial home; he has invaded her privacy, he has been disrespectful, embarrassed her, threatened violence ,physically assaulted her, committed adultery which has caused mental torture, pain and anguish to the petitioner; as a result of cruelty and adultery by the respondent, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no hope for reconciliation.

## **Representation:**

The petitioner is represented by counsel Innocent Ngobi Ndiko of M/s Ngobi Ndiko Advocates.

5. The respondent did not file an answer to the petition. On 21/12/2022, the matter came up for hearing; the petitioner and her counsel were in court whereas the respondent was absent; counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the respondent was served but he has never filed a reply; counsel prayed that the matter proceeds exparte under Order 9 rule 20 (1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules; there was evidence on court record by way of an Affidavit of Service dated 4/9/2020 showing the respondent was served with copies of the summons together with the petition and mediation case summaries; but he never entered appearance,; court ordered that the matter proceeds exparte under Order 9 rule 20 (1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

# **Issues:**

- 6. Counsel filed written submissions framing issues as follows: - - 1) Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent should be dissolved? - 2) Whether the petitioner should be granted sole custody of the children of the marriage and the respondent be granted reasonable access to the children?

- 3) Whether the respondent should pay school fees, maintenance and all other costs in respect of the children? - 4) Whether the property jointly acquired during the marriage should be divided equally between the parties? - 5) Whether the matrimonial home should be registered in the names of the children Mathew Walugembe and Martha Ndagire Patience Tendo? - 6) Whether the permanent prohibition be issued ordering the respondent, his servants, agents from stalking, molesting and annoying the petitioner? - 7) Whether the petitioner may have such further and other relief in the premises as this honourable court may deem fit?

# **Court's consideration:**

- 7. The petitioner adduced a copy of the marriage certificate between her and the respondent showing that they were joined in Holy Matrimony on the 22nd day of September 2013 at Najjanankumbi Seventh Day Adventists Church in Uganda. Existence of a valid marriage has been proved. - 8. It is trite law that a party who fails to file a defence puts himself out of court and no longer has any locus standi and cannot be heard;(see: Sengendo Versus Attorney General (1972)1 EA 140; Mufumba Fredrick V. Waako Lastone Revision Cause No. 006 of 2011); In the case of **Samwiri Massa vs Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297** it was held that where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and they are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted. (see **Prof. Oloka Onyango & Others Vs Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No.6/2014**). It has been proved that the respondent in this case was effectively served with the petition and he opted not to file a reply. This would mean that all the facts stated in the petition are not denied by him; the respondent is deemed to have filed his reply and admitted to all the petitioner's pleadings in the petition, although the claims themselves must pass probity.

# Issues No.1: **Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved?**

This petition is premised on the adultery and cruelty as the grounds for divorce.

9. Section 18 of the law Revision (Miscellaneous amendments) 2023 Act amended section 4(1) of the Divorce Act to read; as follows:

*' 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 he husband- a) has been guilty of adultery;*

*(b) has changed his or her profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and gone through a form of marriage with another man or woman.*

*© has been guilty of bigamy. (d) has been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality. € has been guilty of cruelty; or (f) has been guilty of desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards;*'

I shall determine whether the petition discloses grounds for divorce.

# *Adultery:*

- 10. In her witness statement, the petitioner contends that the respondent throughout the marriage has continued to have extra marital affairs with other women; out of the adultery, he has sired a child Mark Walugembe with a one Evelyn Nabaasa; further that during the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent has had a sexual affair with a one Nnalongo Namuddu Catherine with whom they have twins; he has another set of twins with a one Nnalongo Lucky Katushabe with whom the respondent has since the year 2020 cohabited with her in the petitioner's matrimonial home; that the school bus picks and drops the children from the matrimonial home; the petitioner avers that on several occasions she has read love messages from other ladies to the respondent on his phone and that is how she discovered that he had a love affair with one of the teachers of their children at Agha Khan Nursery School; the said teacher was summoned by the Head teacher of the school and she admitted to the vice, that disciplinary action was taken against her. - 11. Adultery by its nature is difficult to prove unless the parties themselves admit or there is a child because of the relationship between a married man and a woman other than his wife. Courts have since held that evidence is most times circumstantial. (see George Nyakairu v. Rose Nyakairu [1979] HCB, 261, and Dr. Specioza Wandira Naigaga Kazibwe v Eng. Charles Nsubuga Kazibwe Divorce Cause No. 003/2003);However, adultery being a serious matrimonial offence must not be based on

speculation, malicious suspicion and opportunity but serious circumstantial evidence; the position of the law being that he who alleges must prove the facts alleged (section 101 of the Evidence Act); life; The standard of proof therefore has been stated by courts to be higher than that of balance of probability; (see **Veronica Habyarimana v Perfect Habyarimana [1980] HCB 139** where it was held that *"...in adultery, the burden of proof lies throughout on the person alleging it, there being no presumption of innocence...on the standard of proof of adultery, it is now well settled that where there is an allegation of adultery, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. While the evidence need not reach certainty, nevertheless, it must carry a high degree of probability...'*

12. Adultery may be proved by intimate pictures, text messages with the mistress, birth certificate of the illegitimate child or confession/admissions by the parties themselves. The petitioner herein has presented photographs of the supposed illegitimate children; such photographs cannot establish paternity in the absence of a birth certificate or DNA paternity test results showing the biological relationship of the respondent and the said children. There is no evidence adduced before court showing the alleged adultery of the respondent,; no evidence of the claimed love messages between the petitioner and his other mistress was presented to court; The petitioner deposed that there is another woman residing in their matrimonial home; in support of the averments, she referred to a video record which was not admitted in evidence; I have not found sufficient evidence to show that the respondent has committed adultery.

# *Cruelty:*

Cruelty is not defined in the Divorce Act; The dictionary definition of the word Cruelty is **'readiness to give pain or cause suffering to others.' ;** In the case of **Mayambala v. Mayambala Divorce Cause No.3 of 1998,** court relied on the case of Russel v. Russel (1897) AC 395 for the definition of cruelty, as a wilful and unjustified conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger; court in the case of **Veronica Habyarimana v. Habyarimana (1980) HCB 139**; stated that it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a charge of cruelty. (see also **Namukasa Vs Kakondere DC No. 30 of 2010).**

- 13. It is the petitioner's testimony that the respondent has inflicted both physical and emotional abuse towards her; during courtship, he lied to her about his age, religion, education status and name; the respondent created a very hostile environment in the home; sometime in 2019, he kept a panga by the bedside to threaten and cause the petitioner fear for her life; following a serious quarrel, the respondent had forced sex with the petitioner; even when she would be in her menstrual periods he would attempt to have sex with her. She accuses the respondent of stalking her by hiring cyclists and neighbours to monitor her; that the respondent has often invaded information of her bank details and would challenge her whenever she would refuse to extend financial assistance to her about the balances on her account; - 14. The petitioner further stated that throughout the marriage, the respondent has been very disrespectful to her; belittling and embarrassing her both in private and before her workmates by engaging them privately about their marital affairs.; while at home, the respondent is moody, rude, has uncontrolled anger and shouts at the petitioner and physical fights would ensue; all this caused the petitioner mental anguish and pain; she filed a report of domestic violence at Matugga Police Station; a copy of the police reference note No. SD REF:37/20/03/2019 was admitted in evidence and marked PExb.2. - 15. The term 'cruelty' denotes and includes both physical and mental cruelty. The circumstances of each case must be considered but the effect of the respondent's actions on the other party's emotional of physical being is what guides; (see; **N vs N (2008) I KLR (G & F**). Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of peace of the other party; in such cases there may not be direct evidence. - 16. The facts leading to filing a case of domestic violence can only be interpreted to have caused either fear or apprehension of possible danger to

body which amounts to cruelty. I find that cruelty has been proved against the respondent warranting the dissolution of the marriage.

Issue No.2; **Whether the petitioner should be granted sole custody of the children of the marriage and the respondent be granted reasonable access to the children?**

- 17. Section *29 of the Divorce Act*; provides that in suits for dissolution of marriage, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, or after the decree absolute has been produced, make such order as it thinks fit, and may from time to time vary or discharge the orders, with respect to custody, maintenance and education of the minor children of the marriage. - 18. The petitioner together with the respondent have two children; Ndagire Patience Martha Tendo born on 25/10/2008 now aged 14 years and Walugembe Mathew is aged 13 years having been born on 20/7/2010; both children fall within the definition of a child under section 2 of the Children Act as amended. The petitioner deposes that since 2019, she vacated their matrimonial home and has since then been renting an apartment while staying with the children; the petitioner prays for sole custody of the children and that the respondent be granted reasonable access to the children. - 19. **Article 31 (4) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda** provides that it is the right and duty of parents to care for and bring up their children. Art.31 (5) provides that children may not be separated from their families or persons entitled to bring them up against the will of their families or those persons, except in accordance with the law. *Article 34 (1)* of the Constitution provides that children shall have the right to know and be cared for by their parents or those entitled by law to bring them up subject to laws enacted in their best interests. - 20. The best interests of the child is the determinant factor in matters concerning children; (see: **Article 34** of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; Section *3(1)* of the Children Act ; *Article 3(1)* of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child (which Uganda ratified in 1990); courts have since fortified the principle; (see *Mark Siduda Trevor (an infant) Family Cause No. 213 of 2014* and the case of *Deborah Joyce Alitubeera Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2011, Re M an infant SCCA No. 22/2004*); and a host of other cases. - 21. Parents hold the primary right to custody of their children and both parents have similar and equal rights with regard to long-term decisions for their children's well-being. (see: Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi Vs. Harriet Kamakune (Civil Application No.142 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 34); In cases of custody of the child the rights of a mother are the same as those of a father with each party having reasonable access; which includes the right to make important decisions about education, health care, and activities outside school, like sports. - 22. Therefore, even if the petitioner has been staying with the children since the separation from the respondent; I find that the best interests of the children would be served if both parents remain in their lives; the children are entitled to benefit from the relationship with their father even if the parents are divorced; therefore to ensure stability, the physical custody of the children is granted to the petitioner; but joint legal custody is granted to both parents; the respondent shall be entitled to have custody of the children for two weeks during school holidays with notice to the petitioner; as long as the children's views shall always be taken into consideration.

# Issue No.3; **Whether the respondent should pay school fees, maintenance and all other costs in respect of the children?**

- 23. According to copies of rental and condominium receipts in the petitioner's names admitted as Pexb 6, she pays for shelter of the children ; according to her evidence she pays school fees, medical bills, and other basic necessities with minimal support from the respondent; attached to the petition are school fees payment slips paid by the petitioner; - 24. .**Article 34 (1)** of the constitution provides that children shall have the right to know and be cared for by their parents or those entitled by law to bring them up**. Section 5 and 6 of the Children Act** provides that (1) it shall be the duty of a parent, guardian or any person having custody of a child to maintain that child and that duty gives a child the right to; (a) education and guidance; (b) immunisation; (c) adequate diet; (d) clothing; (e) shelter; and (f) medical attention; the paramount principle of the children's welfare to guide all decisions concerning them can never be over emphasised. (see: **In the matter of Deborah Joyce Alitubeera (supra) .**All other considerations fall back to the position of mere guidelines compared to what will ultimately preserve and uphold the children's welfare. Financially capable parents

must cater for the needs of their children irrespective of where the children are and depending on the circumstances of each case. A person having the custody of a child has the duty to maintain it and this confers on the child, the right to education, guidance, adequate diet, clothing, shelter and medical attention. (See **Section 6 Children Act**; and **Raskilal Vs Raskilal [1972] E. A. 150A);** but it does not mean the parent who does not have physical custody does not contribute.

25. In this case, the petitioner testified in court that she is employed as a Principal Administration Officer at Uganda Nurses and Midwives Examination Board; the respondent is reported to be involved in business; both parties being gainfully employed should contribute towards the maintenance of their children; the petitioner and respondent shall each contribute 50% to the maintenance of the children; including among others; education, feeding, clothing, medical care, and shelter.

### Issue No.4; **Whether the property jointly acquired during the marriage should be divided equally between the parties?** Issue 5. **Whether the matrimonial home be registered in the names of the children Mathew Walugembe and Martha Ndagire Patience Tendo?**

I shall deal with issue 4 and 5 concurrently as they both involve matrimonial property.

### **The law.**

- 26. Article 31 (1)(b) of the 1995 Constitution provides; "Men and women of the age of eighteen years and above, have the right to marry and to found a family and are entitled to equal rights in marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. "In **Muwanga versus Kintu High Court Divorce Appeal No. 135 of 1997, (Unreported),** Bbosa J noted that matrimonial property to which each spouse should be entitled is that property which the parties chose to call home and which they jointly contribute to. - 27. In **Rwabinumi Vs. Bahimbisomwe Supreme Court of Uganda Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009;** the Supreme Court deliberated upon the monetary and the non-monetary contribution of a spouse to the acquisition of matrimonial property holding that, *"Our courts have established a principle which recognizes each spouse's contribution to acquisition of property and this contribution may be direct, where the contribution is monetary or indirect, where a spouse offers domestic services.....when distributing the property of a*

*divorced couple, it is immaterial that one of the spouses was not financially endowed as the other as this case clearly showed that while the first respondent was the financial muscle behind all the wealth they acquired, the contribution of the petitioner is no less important than that made by the respondent."*

28. **Section 101 of the Evidence Act** provides that whoever desires court to make a judgment in his favour must prove the fact which he claims. (see also *Ayiko v Lekuru (Divorce Cause-2015/1*) where court stated and I quote: "It was for the Appellant to prove on a balance of probabilities that she directly or indirectly contributed towards acquisition of the properties in respect of which she claimed to be entitled to a share without losing sight of the fact that in regard to indirect contribution, the same was invariably to be considered in its own special circumstances". The right to own property envisaged by Article 26 of the constitution is not diminished by marriage; a person who owns property does not lose it on account of marriage and likewise a person who does not own property should not automatically acquire it the day he or she gets married. There must be proof of contribution (see *Uganda High Court Divorce Appeal No.135 of 1998 Tom Kintu Muwanga vs Myllious Gafabusa Kintu* citing *Kivuitu Vs. Kivuitu [1990-1994] E. A. 270*).

I shall consider each property claimed by the petitioner in order to determine all matters and property in controversy between the parties .

### **i. Land comprised in Block 90 plot 402 Mengo, Kyadondo;**

- 29. It is the testimony of the petitioner that she solely purchased this land from a one Roscoe Nduga at a consideration of UGX. 2,000,000/= (Two million shillings only); that she solely constructed the matrimonial home thereof. She avers that the property was acquired in 2009 long ago before she met with the respondent. She prays that the respondent and his mistress vacates the home so that she retains sole ownership of the property. - 30. I have looked at PExb8 which is the Certificate of Tile of land comprised in Block 90 plot 402 Mengo, Kyadondo; it is solely registered in the names of the petitioner; the transfer form indicates the petitioner as the purchaser; the survey and processing of title fees of Ug. Shs 100,000/= were paid by the petitioner as per the receipt dated 26/3/2009; there is a copy of an approved residential house plan in the petitioner's names at Katalemwa Matuga; the plan was approved by the District Urban Officer at Wakiso district on 1/8/2009; the plan payment receipt of UGX S258,591/= issued

by Wakiso District Local Government is in the names of the petitioner; as per receipt dated 7/6/2012, the petitioner incurred Ug. Shs. 8,660,000/= as purchase for construction materials of doors and glass from Hwan Sung Industries Ltd and the site is indicated as Katalemwa Matuga. On court record are copies of the constructed home.

31. Section 59 Registration of Titles Act is to the effect that possession of a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership of land described therein. (See: the case of *Ddungu vs. Marc Widmer & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2009) [2012] UGHC 253 November 2012).* In this case, evidence has been led to prove that land comprised in Block 90 plot 402 Mengo, Kyadondo is owned by the petitioner; construction of the home on the land commenced before the solemnization of the marriage between her and the respondent; the respondent had locus to file his answer to the petition and appear but he chose not to; his contribution to the purchase of the land or construction of the residential home thereon is not established. In the premises I find that this land and the house constructed thereon is not matrimonial property and belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner can register the land in the names of the children Mathew Walugembe and Martha Ndagire Patience Tendo if she so wishes.

## **ii. Kibanja Land comprised at Kisaku, Bamunanika Luweero district:**

32. The sale agreement dated 11/12/2012 marked as 'N' of the petitioner's trial bundle shows that this land at Kisaku was purchased by Walugembe Mathew who is a son to the parties herein; the respondent signed on behalf of the child. In her witness statement, the petitioner alleges that she bought the land on behalf of their son however the respondent has since sold off the land and used the proceeds therefrom for the respondent's personal gain. She did not prove that the land has been sold. Notwithstanding, I find that kibanja land at Kisaku is not matrimonial property; it was purchased for the child, it is therefore owned by Walugembe Mathew to be held in the best interests of the child.

### **iii. Kibanja Land at Butto Bamunanika Luweero district:**

33. The petitioner claims that she purchased the land for their daughter. According to the sale agreement dated 9/9/2014, it is indicated that the land was purchased by Ndagire Martha who is also a child to the petitioner and the respondent; the respondent signed on behalf of the said child. I find land

at Butto Bamunanika Luweero district not matrimonial property but rather belongs to the child Martha Ndagire.

# **iv. Kibanja Land at Kikabya Bamunanika Luweero district:**

- 34. It is the petitioner's case that she gave the respondent UGX 6,500,000/= for the purchase of this land; however, she claims that the respondent has since the purchase refused to take her to the location of land. The sale agreement dated 11/04/2017 specifies the petitioner and respondent as the purchasers of this land. The petitioner has not proved that she solely contributed to the acquisition of this land; therefore, Kibanja Land at Kikabya Bamunanika Luweero district is found to be matrimonial property and each party is entitled to 50% share in the land. - **v. Brilliant College School in Bamunanika and Bamunanika Town Academy:** - 35. It is the petitioner's case that during pendency of marriage, together with the respondent they commenced education businesses; the respondent convinced her to contribute funds towards the development and establishment of the two schools purporting that the investments belonged to their children. In **A W N vs. F M N [2018] eKLR** court stated that**:** *"…the Court cannot infer what is not tendered in evidence. As a general rule, a Court of Law will not rely on conjecture or assumptions. Neither can it be left to the Court to speculate on what contribution the Plaintiff could have made. Direct evidence must be tendered in support of such contribution. It is the duty of a claimant to lay cogent evidence before Court."* - 36. With the exception of photographs of the buildings in regard to the schools attached to the trial bundle, the petitioner has not adduced documentary evidence of the ownership of the schools neither has she proved her financial contribution towards the establishment of the said school. I have therefore come to the conclusion that Brilliant College School in Bamunanika and Bamunanika Town Academy are not matrimonial property.

Issue No.6; **Whether permanent prohibition should be issued ordering the respondent, his servants, agents from stalking, molesting and annoying the petitioner?**

37. The petitioner claims that the respondent is stalking her, she is followed by boda-boda cyclists wherever she goes; neighbours monitor her movements in and out of home on behalf of the respondent; sometimes when she leaves home to run some errands, the respondent would call her immediately asking her where she would be going even when he would be away from home which has caused her mental anguish and emotional distress; he illegally accesses her bank details and on several occasions he has informed her on the details on her bank account; the respondent invaded her privacy by illegally accessing information on her cell phone and call data from MTN and AIRTEL companies.

- 38. Article 27 of the 1995 Constitution provides for the right to privacy of person and property; **The Universal Declaration of Human Rights** provides the right to privacy of the person under Article 12 that; *"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.''* - 39. "The right to be let alone is a part of the right to enjoy life. The right to enjoy life is in its turn, a part of the fundamental right to life of the individual." As per the observation of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar in, **Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anor. v Union of India & Others, WP (Civil) 492 of 2012.** Stalking is a form of emotional abuse which leads to psychological torture and traumatization of the victim; the petitioner in this case presented a printout of WhatsApp text messages sent to her from the respondent wherein she is verbally threatened; the respondent appears to be challenging her physical location; he has knowledge concerning whoever she is communicating and interacting with; and goes ahead to use the information to insult her; which in my view amounts to the violation of her right to privacy hence entitling the preservation of the right to privacy. This issue is answered in affirmative.

### 40. **Whether the petitioner may have such further and other reliefs as this honourable court may deem fit?**

**Costs:** Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act states; "provided that costs of any action, cause or other matter shall follow the event unless the court or the judge shall for good reason otherwise order." The respondent never participated in the case so the petitioner shall bear her own costs.

In the premises the petition majorly succeeds with the following orders.

- 1. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent is hereby. dissolved on account of cruelty. - 2. A decree Nisi for the dissolution of the marriage between Nassazi Racheal and George Musoma Walugembe hereby issues. - 3. The physical custody of the children is granted to the petitioner; and joint legal custody is granted to both parents. - 4. The respondent shall be entitled to have custody of the children for two weeks during school holidays on prior notice to the petitioner; and in as far as the children's wellbeing and opinions are put into consideration. - 5. The petitioner and respondent shall each contribute 50% towards the welfare and maintenance of the children, including school fees, shelter ,medical needs, entertainment and social requirements. - 6. Land comprised in Block 90 plot 402 Mengo, Kyadondo and the residential house thereon is not matrimonial property; it belongs to the petitioner. - 7. Kibanja Land comprised at Kisaku, Bamunanika Luweero district is not matrimonial property; it is owned for and on behalf of Walugembe Mathew. - 8. Kibanja land at Butto Bamunanika Luweero district belongs to the child Ndagire Martha. - 9. Kibanja land at Kikabya Bamunanika Luweero district is matrimonial property and each party is entitled to 50% share in the land. - 10. Brilliant College School in Bamunanika and Bamunanika Town Academy are not matrimonial property. - 11. The respondent, his servants and agents are permanently prohibited from stalking, harassing and annoying the petitioner. - 12. Each party shall pay their own costs.

Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka

Judge

05/10/2023

Delivered by email to:innocentndiko@yahoo.com