Olinga v Wadada (Divorce Cause 88 of 2022) [2023] UGHCFD 121 (3 August 2023)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (FAMILY DIVISION)**

#### **DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 88 OF 2022**

**OLINGA TAHIRIH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PETITIONER**

#### **VERSUS**

**DICK WADADA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

**Before: Justice Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka.**

#### **Judgment.**

#### **Introduction:**

- 1. Olinga Tahirih **('the Petition'** herein)filed this divorce petition against Dick Wadada (the 'respondent' herein); for orders that: - the petitioner's marriage to the respondent be dissolved; the petitioner and respondent be granted shared custody of the children; the respondent be ordered to pay maintenance of the children; the matrimonial properties owned by the parties be shared between the petitioner and the respondent in a manner that is just; the petitioner be awarded costs of this petition. - 2. The petitioner and the respondent solemnized their marriage on the 30th day of December 2006 in a Baha'i Marriage Ceremony and had it registered under the Marriage act; together, the parties have four issues to the marriage to wit; Carmel Nambuya Wadada aged 14 years, Amy Kisaka Wadada aged 12 years, Ethan Wadada aged 11 years and Ivannah Wadada aged 8 years old; the respondent is maintaining the children.

#### **Representation:**

3. Counsel Kavuma Terence of M/s Kabayiza, Kavuma, Mugerwa & Ali Advocates represented the petitioner; when the matter came up for hearing on 15/3/2023; the petitioner and her counsel were present while the respondent was absent; counsel informed court that the respondent was served with the petition and did not respond, a hearing notice was also served on the respondent but still he failed to appear for hearing; counsel prayed that the matter proceeds exparte under order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

- 4. The affidavit of service dated 30/5/2022, shows that the respondent was, on the 26th day of May 2022 served with the petition and summons to answer the petition; he acknowledged receipt of the same by appending his signature on the service copies which are attached to the affidavit of service; another affidavit of service dated 23/1/2023 indicates that on 29/11/2022, the respondent acknowledged receipt of hearing notice for 15/3/2023; attached to the affidavit of service is a copy of a hearing notice bearing the respondent's received signature; the respondent with no justification, failed to file a reply or appear for court hearing; being satisfied that service was effected upon the respondent, court ordered that the matter proceeds exparte under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. - 5. 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. The respondent opted not to file a defence, he is therefore deemed to have admitted all the petitioner's claims in the petition, although the claims must pass probity;(see *Samwiri Massa vs Rose Achen (supra).*

#### **The case:**

6. The respondent has on several occasions violently beaten the petitioner in front of their children, inflicting grievous body injuries; which prompted her to report the same to the police; the respondent has also in the course of his marriage to the petitioner committed acts of adultery and produced two children out of wedlock; as a result, the two oldest children of the marriage have been psychologically affected; the marriage has irretrievably broken down;

The petitioner contends that with the respondent, they jointly own properties comprised in; Block 216 plot 3669 Kyadondo, LRV 3922 Folio 22 plot 38A Wanale Road Mbale; and shares in Geberious Trading and Investment (U) Ltd and she prays that they be shared equally.

#### **Issues.**

- 7. Counsel filed written submissions and proposed the following issues for resolution - *1. Whether the petitioner's marriage to the respondent should be dissolved?* - *2. Whether the petitioner should be granted joint custody of the children with the respondent?* - *3. Whether the respondent should be ordered to provide for maintenance of the children?* - *4. Whether matrimonial property should be distributed?* - *5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to costs of the petition?*

I shall resolve issue 1, then 2; issue four followed by issue three because the outcome of issue 4 may feed into, and help resolve issue 3.

### **Determination:**

#### Issue No.1: **Whether the petitioner's marriage to the respondent should be dissolved?**

8. As proof of marriage, the petitioner adduced a copy of a marriage certificate dated the 30th of December 2006; the marriage was celebrated under the Baha'i faith, at the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'i of Kampala; the marriage was duly registered; endorsed to the certificate of marriage is the stamp and signature of the Assistant Registrar General of Marriages. Existence of a valid marriage has been proved.

The petition presents adultery and cruelty as grounds for divorce.

1. **Section 4 of the Divorce Act**; provides that provides for grounds of divorce was found unconstitutional in **Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA) & 5 Others v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No. 2/2003** on grounds of discriminatory application of the provision to men and women on the ground of sex, contrary to Article 31 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Courts have since gone ahead to hold that each of the grounds individually set out in the Act are equally available to both men and women; either jointly as stand alone(see *Specioza Wandera Kazibwe v Engineer Charles Nsubuga Kazibwe ;DC No. 3/ 2003*) also cited in *Namuyimbwa Proscovia v David Ralph Pace; DC No. 14 of 2017.)*

## *Adultery:*

- 9. According to the Petitioner's witness statement the respondent has committed adultery with a one Vivien Pearl Byamugisha with whom he now has four children, Elisha, Ella, Esther and a baby boy whose name is unknown; that the petitioner shares his time between the petitioner's home and that of Vivien. - 10. The position of the law is that for a petitioner to succeed on the ground of adultery, she/he must prove the adultery to a standard that is closer to reasonable doubt (see *Habyalimana v P. Habyalimana [190] HCB 139 cited with approval in Mushanga v Nossie Buchana High Court Divorce Cause No 5/99* (unreported). The burden of proof falls on the spouse alleging adultery, who has to prove that the other spouse had sexual intercourse with the third party. - 11. In *Mayambala V Mayambala High Court 1998*; adultery was defined as the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and person of the opposite sex, the two persons not being married to each other. Since it is hard to directly

capture individuals in adulterous acts, courts have adopted reliance on circumstantial evidence which however must be corroborated;(see *Dr. Specioza Wandira Naigaga Kazibwe v Eng. Charles Nsubuga Kazibwe Divorce Cause 3/2003.*

- 12. Marriage being a relationship that goes beyond the parties themselves and affects both close and extended families and even communities grounds for divorce must be clear not implied; divorce rips already close knit relationships and impacts children especially, emotionally for 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...';* - 13. Evidence must go beyond establishing suspicion and opportunity to commit adultery and must be such as to satisfy the Court that from the nature of things adultery must have been committed. Although the commission of adultery may be proved by circumstantial evidence (which is difficult), the case can be made out stronger if there is a combination of evidence of the birth of illegitimate children. This position was reiterated by court in **George Nyakairu v. Rose Nyakairu [1979] HCB, 261**, where court stated; "*In allegations of adultery, it is not necessary to prove the direct fact of adultery for that fact is almost to be inferred from circumstances as a necessary conclusion since it is indeed very rare that parties are ever surprised during the direct act of adultery."* In **Hayes v. Hayes, 225 La. 374, [73 So. 2d 179](https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/supreme-court/1954/225-la-374-0.html) (1954),** court stated that circumstantial proof of adultery *"must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt."* - 14. In this case, apart from the petitioner's allegations that the respondent has committed adultery, she has not adduced direct or circumstantial evidence to convince court that the respondent has committed adultery with the said Vivien Pearl Byamugisha or at all; there is no proof that the respondent has illegitimate children; nor evidence of paternity for instance through documentation such as certificate of birth or DNA results to demonstrate a proven genetic connection between the respondent and the alleged children; the evidence, presented is nothing more than suspicion and mere speculation in support of the act of adultery.

It is therefore my finding that adultery as a ground has not been proved to the required standard.

## *Cruelty:*

- 15. The petitioner testified that the respondent became violent over the years and has inflicted physical, emotional and psychological abuse towards her even in the presence of the children; she reported three incidents to the police under the Family and Protection Unit; the police referred her to the Family and Children's Court for assistance; in November 2018, fearing for her life, she moved out of her rented home and went to her parent's home, in Entebbe; and only returned two months later in 2019; she is living in constant fear, the respondent has installed cameras in their home where he watches her movements, and GPS on her car, so that he can track her every movement at all times from his phone; the petitioner avers that this state of affairs, she cannot no longer bear. - 16. Cruelty is defined by Oxford Languages Dictionary as 'behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another, especially a spouse whether intentionally or not'; since it can be emotional therefore it depends on the effect one's behaviour has on another and how the other('victim') takes it; it may be subjective depending on one's emotional/ temperamental strength and character; that is why there is no definition for it in law so courts have considered facts of each case to determine what amounts to cruelty; which has been stated to include situations which have the effect of producing actual or apprehended injury to the petitioner's physical or mental health. ; danger to life, limbs or health or mental, or a reasonable apprehension of it, **(see Veronica Habyarimana v Perfect Habyarimana) (supra).** - 17. In **Mayambala v Mayambala DC 3/1998,** court relied on *Russell v Russell (1897) AC 395* for the definition of cruelty as willful 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. Sir John Nicholl in *Westmeath v. Westmeath (1817) 2 Hagg. Eccl. Supp. 1 at p.71* stated that while cruelty was impossible to define with precision, the test should be rather the effects produced than the acts done. Cruelty should be judged from its effects, not solely from the means by which those effects are produced. While judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what must be seen is whether that conduct, which is accumulative, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. - 18. *Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004 Page 1141)* defines the term "mental cruelty" as "without actual violence, the behaviour of a spouse that endangers life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse." Mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence; it is a matter of inference to be dram from the facts or circumstances of the case. To determine whether something is mental cruelty, the nature of the cruel treatment must be examined, as well as the mental

impact of it on the spouse, and whether it causes reasonable apprehension in the spouse's mind that living with the other spouse would be "harmful" or "injurious."

19. The allegation of trucking by cameras and GPS was not proved but the petitioner testified that the respondent assaulted her physically and she reported the matter to police; she relied on the report made to police; cruelty has been proved.

### Issue No.2. *Whether the petitioner should be granted joint custody of the children with the respondent?*

- 20.*Section 29 of the Divorce Act* provides that in dissolution of marriage, the court may at any stage of the proceedings make such orders with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children of the marriage. The petitioner prays for joint custody of the children of the marriage by the names of Wadada Carmel Nambuya aged 15 years, Amy Kisaka Wadada aged 13 years; Wadada Ethan Namulugwa aged 12 years and Wadada Ivannah Ehsani now 9 years with the respondent. - 21. The position of the law is that in matters concerning children their welfare must be of paramount consideration and courts have held so.(See the case of Joyce Deborah Alitubera and in the matter of Richard Masaba CA No. 70 & 81 of 2011 at page 8 where it was stated that;*"in all actions concerning Children undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. This is as enshrined in Article in Article 34 of the Constitution, section 3 and 1st schedule of the Children Act and international conventions that Uganda is a party to such as the UN convention on the Rights of the child (article 3(1); the African Charter on the rights and Welfare of the child(article 4(1)…"* they added that … *"Court and any person is enjoined to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned in light of his age and understanding, child's physical, emotional and educational needs, the likely effects of change in the child's circumstances, the child's sex, background and any other circumstances relevant in the matter, any harm that the child has suffered and is at risk of suffering, the capacity of the child' parents, guardians or other involved in the care of the child in meeting his/her needs*". Courts have followed that position over the years. - 22. The Children Act has since been amended by the Children (Amendment) Act **2016 Act 9** where section 3 has been fortified by including the provisions of article 4(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child; *Section 3 provides:'(1) 'The welfare of the child shall be of paramount consideration whenever the state, a court, a tribunal, a local authority or any person determines any question in respect to the upbringing of a child, the* *administration of a child's property, or the application of any income arising from that administration'. (2) 'In all matters relating to a child, whether before a court of law or before any other person, regard shall be had to the general principle that any delay in determining the matter is likely to be prejudicial to the welfare of the child'. (3)' In determining any question under subsection (1), court or any other person shall have regard to— 1)the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, with due regard to his or her age and understanding; 2)the child's physical, emotional and educational needs;3) the likely effects of any change in the child's circumstances;4)the child's sex, age, background and any other circumstances relevant in the matter; 5)any harm that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering; and where relevant, the capacity of the child's parents, guardian or any other person involved in the care of the child, and in meeting the needs of the child."*Section 4(1)(l) provides that every child shall have the right to*- 'exercise, in addition to all the rights stated in this Act, the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Organization of African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the child with appropriate modifications to suit circumstances in Uganda that are not specifically mentioned in this Act';*

- 23. According to **Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition, Volume 13, Para 809)**: *"Where in any proceedings before any Court, the custody or upbringing of a minor is in question, the court, in deciding that question, must regard the welfare of the minor as the first and paramount consideration, and must not take into consideration whether from any other point of view the claim of the father in respect of such custody or upbringing is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father. In relation to the custody or upbringing of a minor, a mother has the same rights and authority as the law allows to a father, and the rights and authority of mother and father are equal and are exercisable by either without the other."* - 24. It is a general rule that parents are joint guardians of a child and responsible for their welfare and protection. Article 31(4) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that; it is the right and duty of parents to care for and bring up their children; Section 4(1) of the Children Act (as amended) provides that it is the right of every child to stay with their parents or guardians. - 25. Unless there is a strong reason barring the parents from taking care of their children which reason presents a risk to the welfare of the children, children have a right to care, access and have a relationship with their parents and, the same present as both a duty and a right to the parents vice versa(see Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi Vs. Harriet Kamakune (Civil Application No.142 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 34).

- 26. Court in **Otto Methodius Pacific V. Edyline Sabrina Pacific C. A. C. A No.88of 2013;** adopted with approval the reasoning in the case of CX V. CY [2006] 4 LRC and held that in any custody proceedings, it is crucial that the courts recognize and promote joint parenting so that both parents can continue to have a direct involvement in the child's life; court further considered that custody is not only about care, control and access. It also involves the right to make long term decisions like education, religion, major healthcare decisions and others relating to a child; court concluded that sole custody should be exceptional, and should be granted only where for example physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by one parent is established. I hold the same view. - 27. The children's entitlement to parental responsibilities should neither be affected by the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or other formal relationship nor the legal or factual separation between the parents; their rights should never be fettered by the relationship/ or lack thereof; between their parents. - 28. The right of both parents to custody and care of their child(ren) stems from the rights of the family under Article 31(1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, which states that; 'Men and women of the age of eighteen years and above have the right to marry and to find a family and are entitled to equal rights in marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution....' (emphasis supplied); courts have enunciated the position (see: the case of Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi vs. Harriet Kamakune (Civil Application No.142 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 34). Section 4(1) of the Children Act (as amended) provides that it is the right of every child to stay with their parents or guardians. - 29. 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; to ensure stability, since the petitioner has been staying with the children, 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 stay with the children anytime he wishes subject to one week notice to the Petitioner, it being understood that the wishes of the children shall be taken into consideration; pursuant to section 4(b) of the Children Amendment Act 2016.

## *Issue No.4. Whether matrimonial property should be distributed.*

*30.***Article 26 (1) of the 1995 Constitution** provides that; every person has a right to own property either individually or in association with others. In the case of **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. In **Rwabinumi Vs. Bahimbisomwe Supreme Court** **of Uganda Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009** made 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.".*

- **31. 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 No.1 of 2015**) 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".* - **32.**In my view the right to own property envisaged by Article 26 of the 1995 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*). - **33.**The petitioner relied on copies of certificates of title in respect to property comprised in Block 216 plot 3669 Mengo Kyadondo and leasehold certificate of title comprised in Block 216 plot 38A Wanale Road Mbale; I take note that both certificates of title are jointly registered in the names of the petitioner and the respondent. Under **section 59 Registration of Titles Act** possession of a certificate of title by a registered person is conclusive evidence of ownership of the land described therein. (see *Abdu Karim Vs Kabarebe H. C. C. A No. 373 of 1991*). It is my finding that both properties are matrimonial property. - **34.**The petitioner's claim is for the property at Mengo Kyadondo where she states to be residing with the children; she avers that the second property in Mbale is where the respondent conducts business. It is in no doubt that both parties being jointly registered are entitled to an equitable share in the mentioned matrimonial properties. I have however considered the fact that the properties are in different areas one in Kampala and another in Mbale with no determined values; it would therefore not be equitable to share the properties based on who is utilising which

because the values may be different one in the city of Kampala and another in Mbale;. In the premises both properties shall be equally shared between the parties. I shall state when the sharing should be done while resolving issue 3.

35. In her petition, the petitioner contends that she jointly holds shares with the respondent in Geberious Trading and Investment (U) Ltd. However, no evidence was presented on record that this company is in existence or that the petitioner holds shares in the company. This property shall not be found to be matrimonial property because its existence has not been proved.

## Issue No.3. **Whether the respondent should be ordered to provide for maintenance of the children?**

- **36.**In her evidence, the petitioner states that the respondent is maintaining and meeting the necessities of life for the children which include feeding, security, utility bills, domestic servants, and transport for the children to and from school, medical care and educational needs**;** she prays that respondent be ordered to pay maintenance for the children**.** - 37. Parental responsibilities should neither be affected by the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or other formal relationship nor by the legal or factual separation between the parents. A child's welfare is a paramount consideration when determining who to grant maintenance of a child. **Article 31(4) of the Constitution** stipulates that it is the right and duty of parents to care for and bring up their children; **Section 5 and 6 of the Children Act**; provides that it shall be the duty of a parent, guardian or any person having custody of a child to maintain that child and, in particular, 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. - 38. In awarding maintenance costs, court must take into consideration the means and earning capacity of the party against whom maintenance is to be enforced. It is in the best interests of the children that both parents are legally responsible for the financial costs of bringing up their children, even parents who don't live with their children. The petitioner under paragraph 6 of her witness statement deposes that; she has always been a working woman who the respondent resents, he preferred that she can be housewife and under his full control but this was not possible for her; at paragraph 20, she avers that the respondent has business premises on property comprised in LRV 3922 Folio 22 plot 38A Wanale Road Mbale; the implication of these statements is that both parties are financially able. The petitioner's claim that the respondent has been taking full maintenance of the children is deemed true and admitted by the respondent who did not file an answer

## to the petition. (See **Prof. Oloka Onyango & Others Vs Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No.6/2014**).

- 39. The petitioner prays that the respondent be ordered to meet the education and medical needs of the children in addition to a monthly maintenance allowance of UGX 5,000,000/= ;it appears this prayer is made based on the assumption that the prayer that the property in which she stays with the respondent and the children be given to her and her children, would be granted; I have however decided that each of the parties is entitled to 50% of the properties they jointly own; - 40. Having so decided, the couple's children -Carmel Nambuya Wadada aged 14 years, Amy Kisaka Wadada aged 12 years, Ethan Wadada aged 11 years and Ivannah Wadada aged 8 years old; have been living with both parents at their home located at Block 216 plot 3669 Mengo Kyadondo; the position of the law concerning children has been stated above; their welfare must always be guarded; while both parties are entitled to 50% of the home where the children now reside, selling it and sharing the proceeds may not be in the best interests of the children; - 41. Section 3(3)( b)of the Children Act provides that in determining any matter to do with the upbringing of a child the child's physical, emotional and educational needs shall be considered.; while section 3(3)(c) provides that court shall have regard to the likely effects of any change in the child's circumstances; To avoid destabilizing the children's growth and stability and in the interest of justice pursuant to section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act coupled with the parents' duty to provide shelter for their children pursuant to section 5 of the Children act; the sharing of the home shall be done after the youngest child- Ivannah Wadada now aged 8 years has turned 18 years of age; for the Mbale property the parties shall jointly establish the value, sell and share the proceeds equally. - 42. Since the respondent has been staying at the home albeit allegedly for some days, the provision for the day today maintenance may not be easy since the parties shall no longer be living in the same home; the petitioner did not provide a breakdown of the 5,000,000 she proposed for the 4 children's cost of feeding, security, utility bills, domestic servants, and transport to and from school; she testified that she works therefore since the respondent shall be providing school fees and medical costs for the children; he shall provide a monthly maintenance of UGX 3,500,000/=;the rest of the needs shall be met by the petitioner.

Issue No.5. *Whether the petitioner is entitled to costs of the petition?*

43. It is trite law that costs follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to costs. **Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act** states; "costs of any action, cause or other matter shall follow the event unless the court or the judge shall for good reason otherwise order." Considering the outcome of the case and the fact that both parties have the responsibility to look after the children and maintain a conducive environment around them, each party shall meet their own costs.

In the premises the petition succeeds, and it is hereby ordered as follows.

- 1. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent is hereby dissolved on account of cruelty and decree nisi herby issues. - 2. The matrimonial property comprised in Block 216 plot 3669 Mengo Kyadondo and Block 216 plot 38A Wanale Road Mbale; shall be equally shared by the parties when Wadada Ivannah Ehsani turns 18 years of age. - 3. Legal custody of Wadada Carmel Nambuya, Amy Kisaka Wadada, Wadada Ethan Namulugwa, and Wadada Ivannah Ehsani is granted to both the petitioner and respondent, but the petitioner shall have physical custody. - 4. The Respondent shall have the right to spend time with the children anytime he wishes subject to one week notice to the Petitioner, it being understood that the wishes of the children shall be taken into consideration. - 5. The respondent shall meet the education and medical costs of the children and contribute 3,500,000 monthly, towards the children's maintenance. - 6. Each party shall bear their own costs. - 7. The petitioner shall bring this divorce to the attention of the Registrar of Marriages for purposes of updating their records.

Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka.

Judge 3/8/2023

Delivered by email to: tkavuma@kma.co.ug,info@kma.co.ug