By Frank Kamuntu
The Family Division of the High Court in Kampala has made a significant ruling in a divorce case involving Ms. Peace Uhiriwe and her husband, Paul Kagwa. Ms. Uhiriwe, who works with UNICEF, sought an equitable division of family property as part of the divorce proceedings. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Alice Komuhangi Khaukha, has garnered attention due to its unique outcome.
Here are the key details:
- Background:
- Ms. Peace Uhiriwe and Mr. Paul Kagwa got married on December 16, 2005.
- The couple did not have any children during their marriage.
- Property Dispute:
- In her petition, Ms. Uhiriwe claimed that several valuable properties were matrimonial assets to which she was entitled as a spouse.
- These properties include:
- House No. 66 Type A
- 10 Lubowa Housing Estates
- Plot 1053 Block 410
- Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18
- FRV 346 Folio 20
- Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street, Kampala
- LRV 3026 Folio 14
- Plot No. 63 Nakiwogo Road, Entebbe
- LRV 2384, Folio 5
- Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe
- LRV 277, Folio 25
- Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District
- Contention Regarding House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18:
- Ms. Uhiriwe argued that House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, and Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 were initially shell properties.
- She claimed that she and her husband completed these properties together.
- The Lubowa house served as their matrimonial home from July 2006 until November 2013 when she left.
- Kagwa’s Defense:
- Mr. Kagwa countered that none of the properties listed by his estranged wife constituted matrimonial property.
- He asserted that he acquired these properties long before his marriage to Ms. Uhiriwe.
- Additionally, he emphasized that the properties were registered solely in his name.
- Court’s Decision:
- Justice Komuhangi acknowledged the validity of the marriage between Kagwa and Uhiriwe.
- However, she clarified that none of the properties were jointly registered in both their names.
- As a result, the court awarded curtains and one cow to Ms. Uhiriwe, deviating from the usual distribution of assets in divorce cases.
“The 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa) in his evidence adduced the Certificates of Title and the court confirmed that they are registered in his sole name and they were registered before the marriage between the 1st respondent and the petitioner save for Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street, Kampala and Leasehold Register Volume no. 3026 Folio 14 Plot 63, Nakiwogo Road which was registered during the subsistence of the marriage between the 1st respondent and the petitioner,” Justice Komuhangi observed.
Adding: “I will also hasten to add that though the said two properties were registered during the subsistence of the marriage, they had been acquired on 5th August 2005 and 10th November 2003 respectively as, as per the Sale Agreements. FRK was the purchaser on REX8 while Paul Kagwa was the purchaser on REX 5. Both purchases took place before the 1st respondent got married to the petitioner,”
Further in her analysis, the judge observed that Ms Uhiriwe had insisted that though the properties were registered in the sole name of her husband, they were matrimonial property because he had made a representation to her that upon their marriage, the properties became matrimonial property.
The judge further observed that Kagwa had denied having ever made such representation to her and that he had insisted that when he married her, he had made it clear to her that he had children from the previous marriage and his properties belonged to them.
“In light of the adduced evidence, it is my finding that none of those properties are matrimonial. They are individual properties and they belong to the 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa),” ruled Justice Komuhangi.
The judge also observed that though Mr Kagwa and Ms Uhiriwe lived in the Lubowa house as husband and wife and called the same home, the same can’t be called a matrimonial property because none of them owned it as the same belonged to a company known as FRK that was founded three years before their marriage.
The judge also disputed the testimony of Ms Uhiriwe of how she purchased tiles and paint from Nakasero and that would also supervise the builders.
“…However, she did not adduce any evidence of the receipts or the people from whom she claimed to have purchased the items from. I would have also expected her to at least adduce the evidence of some of the workers who completed the construction of the house to support her claim which was however not done,” observed the judge.
The judge in her analysis, said among the receipts that Ms Uhiriwe attached to her trial bundle for items used to furnish the house were two receipts in amounts of Shs2m and Shs800,000 used to buy curtains and were in her name.
“It is therefore, my finding that she has proved that she paid for the curtains to the tune of Shs2.8m, and the 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa) is hereby ordered to make a refund of that money to the petitioner,” ruled the jurist.
Regarding the issue of the 10 cows that Ms Uhiriwe had sought, the judge held that she failed to adduce any evidence to prove that she had the said number of cows in the Ntungamo farm.
The judge further added that no evidence was also adduced as to whether the one cow given as a gift has since increased as a result of reproduction because the marriage took place in December 2005.
“In light of the above, this Court is constrained to order for the release of only one cow which the 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa) agreed to. The 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa) is hereby ordered to hand over the one (1) cow to the petitioner (Ms Uhiriwe),” ruled Justice Komuhangi.
She added: “The 1st respondent (Mr Kagwa) is hereby ordered to hand over the one (1) cow to the petitioner (Ms Uhiriwe) not later than 30 days from the date of this Judgment.”
Many Ugandans especially social media users say this ruling highlights the complexities of property division during divorce proceedings and underscores the importance of individual contributions during a marriage. While Ms. Uhiriwe did not receive a portion of the multi-billion properties, the court’s decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.
Have An Advert Or Article You Want Us To Publish? WhatsApp: +256760530830.
