THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA

(FAMILY DIVISION)
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 118 OF 2017
5

UHIRIWE PEACE ================================ PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. KUUKU KAGWA PAUL

2. DIANA NATUKUNDA======================= RESPONDENTS
10 3. FAITH KAGWA

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ALICE KOMUHANGI KHAUKHA

JUDGMENT

15 Introduction
This Judgment is in respect of a Divorce Petition filed in this Honorable Court by
the Petitioner against the Respondents for Orders that:
i) The marriage between the Petitioner and the first Respondent be dissolved;
ii) The registration of the 3rd Respondent as proprietor of the matrimonial home,
20 House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410,
Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 be cancelled and the property be registered in
both the names of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent as tenants in common
in equal shares;
iii) The properties comprised in FRV 346 Folio 20, Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street,
25 Kampala, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot No.63 Nakiwogo Road Entebbe, LRV
2384, Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block

1
 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District be jointly registered in both
the names of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent as tenants in common in
equal shares;
iv) The 1st Respondent be ordered to hand over all the cows in his Ntungamo
5 farmland that belong to the Petitioner;
v) The 2nd Respondent pays general damages to the Petitioner for committing
adultery with the 1st Respondent;
vi) The 2nd Respondent pays interest on (v) above at the court rate from date of
judgement till full payment;
10 vii) The Petitioner be awarded permanent alimony by the 1st Respondent;
viii) The Respondents pay costs incidental to the Petition; and
ix) This Honorable Court makes any other order it deems fit in the circumstances.

Representation
15 At the hearing of the Petition, the Petitioner was represented by Mr. Samuel Kiriaghe
of MRK Advocates while the 1st and 3rd Respondents were represented by Mr. Saadi
Seninde of Oketcha Baranyanga & Co. Advocates. The 2 nd Respondent never filed
a Reply to the Petition, she was neither in the Court nor represented.

20 The Petition
The Petition was filed in this Honorable Court on 28 th November 2017 and the 1st
Respondent filed an answer to the Petition on 14th February 2018 with a Cross
Petition. In the Cross Petition, the 1st Respondent prayed for orders that:
(a) The marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent be nullified;
25 (b) A declaration that the 3rd Respondent as a registered proprietor of the property
situate at House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block
410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 was legal;
2
 (c) A declaration that property comprised in 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 and LRV 277,
Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District are not
5 subject to division;
(d) An order stopping the Petitioner from harassing the 1st Respondent about
property;
(e) Costs of the suit and other orders.

10 On 2nd March 2018, the Petitioner filed a Rejoinder to the 1st Respondent’s Answer
to the Petition and a Reply to the Cross Petition. On 10 th April 2019 the 3rd
Respondent filed a Reply to the Petition and on 16th April 2019, the Petitioner filed
a Rejoinder to the 3rd Respondent’s Reply to the Petition.

15 The Petitioner called a total of three witnesses, herself and two others while the
Respondent called a total 6 witnesses, himself and 5 others. The 3rd Respondent did
not offer any evidence.

I also need to note that I took on this case when it was part-heard. The two witnesses
20 for the Petitioner had testified and I listened to the evidence of the Petitioner and the
Respondent’s case. Evidence was by way of witness statements and the parties were
cross-examined and re-examined by Counsel. Counsel for both parties filed written
submissions and the same have been considered in this Judgment.

25 Facts
Ms. Peace Uhiriwe hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner” and Mr. Paul Kagwa
Paul Kuuku hereinafter referred to as “the 1st Respondent” got married on 16th
3
 December 2005 at Our Lady Queen of Virgins Kisubi Parish. The Petitioner and the
1st Respondent did not have any children together. They first lived together in
Entebbe in the Servant’s Quarters of Ministry of Health because the 1 st Respondent
was then employed by the Ministry. Later, in July 2006, they moved to House No.
5 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410
Folio 18 where they lived until November 2013 when the Petitioner left the home
for reasons that the 1st Respondent had committed adultery with several women
including Natukunda Diana (2nd Respondent) and he was also cruel to her.

10 The Petitioner further claims that the properties situate at House No. 66 Type A,
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 and
LRV 277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District are
15 matrimonial properties to which she is entitled as a spouse.

On the other hand, the 1st Respondent claims that the marriage between him and the
Petitioner was a nullity because at the time it was solemnized, the 1 st Respondent
was still married to another woman. He also insists that none of the properties listed
20 is matrimonial property and the Petitioner has no interest hence the Petition and the
Cross Petition.

Issues
1. Whether there was a valid marriage between the Petitioner and the 1 st
25 Respondent;
2. Whether the properties comprised in House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing
Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18, FRV 346 Folio
4
 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
and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi
District and the Farm land at Ntungamo District are matrimonial property;
5 3. In the alternative, whether the Petitioner acquired any interest in the above
properties by way of proprietary estoppel?
4. Whether the transfer of property comprised in House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa
Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 to the 3 rd
Respondent was lawful;
10 5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Resolution of issues
Issue 1: Whether there was a valid marriage between the Petitioner and the 1 st
Respondent.
15 Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that there was no valid marriage between the
Petitioner and the 1st Respondent because on 16th December 2005, when the two
purported to get married at Our Lady Queen of Virgins Kisubi Catholic Church, the
1st Respondent was still married to Ms. Jackline Muteteri with whom he had four
children. He insisted that though the marriage between the 1 st Respondent and Ms.
20 Jackline Muteteri was declared a nullity by the Court on 18th May 2006, it was still
subsisting on 16th December 2005 when the 1st Respondent purported to contract
another marriage with the Petitioner. He invited the Court to find that the purported
marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent was a nullity.

25 On the other hand, Counsel for the Petitioner insisted that there existed a valid
marriage between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner. He argued that the alleged
marriage between the 1st Respondent and Ms. Jackline Muteteri was void ab initio
5
 because at the time the 1st Respondent purported to contract a marriage with her, she
had a subsisting marriage between her and another man called Wilson Karakire,
having solemnized their marriage on 7th February 1976 at All Saints Cathedral,
Kampala. He invited the Court to find that the marriage between the 1st Respondent
5 and the Petitioner was valid because the Court declared the purported marriage
between the 1st Respondent and Ms. Jackline Muteteri a nullity on 18th May 2006.

Court’s Consideration
The undisputed evidence is that on 19/8/1983 the 1st Respondent contracted a civil
10 marriage with Ms. Jackline Muteteri as evidenced by the Marriage Certificate
(REX1) and together they have four daughters who are now adults. The 1 st
Respondent later discovered that prior to his marriage to Ms. Jackline Muteteri, the
latter was already married to another man called Wilson Karakire, having
solemnized their marriage on 7th February 1976 at All Saints Cathedral, Kampala
15 who was still alive and the marriage was still subsisting.

The 1st Respondent then instituted Matrimonial Cause No. 23 of 2005 against Ms.
Jackline Muteteri for nullification of the marriage on grounds of the subsistence of
another marriage. Before the Court could pronounce itself, the 1st Respondent
20 entered into another marriage with the Petitioner on 16th December 2005 at Our Lady
Queen of Virgins Kisubi Catholic Church. The Court later pronounced itself on 18th
May 2006 when it declared the marriage between the 1 st Respondent and Ms.
Jackline Muteteri a nullity as per the copy of the Judgment which was exhibited as
PEX11.
25

Section 11 of the Divorce Act, Cap. 249 provides that:

6
 “A husband or a wife may present a petition to the court praying that his or her marriage may
be declared null and void.”

Section 12 (1) thereof provides that:

5 “The following are the grounds on which a decree of nullity may be made- (d) that the former
husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with
the previous husband or wife was then in force”

Whereas Counsel for the 1st Respondent insists that the marriage between the 1 st
10 Respondent and Ms. Muteteri was subsisting, it is my considered view that a
marriage which is contracted when one of the parties still has a subsisting marriage
with another person who is still alive is void ab initio. As per the Judgment of the
Court in PEX11, it was a concession of the parties that the marriage between the 1st
Respondent and Ms. Jackline Muteteri was a nullity. This therefore means that the
15 1st Respondent could contract a lawful marriage with the Petitioner. I have
considered the 1st Respondent’s claim that he was coerced into marriage by the
Petitioner because she deceived him that she was pregnant. However, I find that it
lacks merit because he was fully conscious of what he was doing. I therefore find
that though Court had not declared the marriage between the 1st Respondent and Ms.
20 Jackline Muteteri a nullity as at 16th December 2005 when the 1st Respondent entered
into a marriage with the Petitioner, it was void ab initio.

It is therefore, my finding that the marriage solemnized between the 1 st Respondent

and the Petitioner on 16th December 2005 at Our Lady Queen of Virgins Kisubi
25 Catholic Church was valid.

Issue 1 is therefore answered in the affirmative.

7
 Issue 2: Whether properties comprised in House No. 66 Type A, 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 and LRV 277,
5 Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District and the Farm
land at Ntungamo District are matrimonial property.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the above stated properties are matrimonial
and Court should be able to find them as such. He insisted that upon marriage, the
Petitioner found the 1st Respondent with FRV 346 Folio 20, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot
10 No.63 Nakiwogo Road Entebbe, LRV 2384, Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe
and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District and
the Farm land at Ntungamo District and the 1st Respondent assured her that since
she had gotten married to him, they were going to be their joint properties.

15 Concerning Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street, Kampala, the Petitioner’s argument is that
she gave spousal consent towards the acquisition of the mortgage and she also made
a contribution towards the payment of the mortgage. Regarding House No. 66 Type
A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 it
is her contention that she found when it was a shell house and together with the 1 st
20 Respondent, they completed it. They stayed at the Lubowa house as husband and
wife as their matrimonial home from July 2006 until November 2013 when the
Petitioner left the home.

On the other hand, Counsel for the 1st Respondent contended that none of those
25 properties is matrimonial property. He insisted that properties comprised in FRV 346
Folio 20, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot No.63 Nakiwogo Road Entebbe, LRV 2384, Folio
5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at
8
 Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District and the Farm land at Ntungamo District were personal
properties of the 1st Respondent which he acquired long before his marriage to the
Petitioner and they are registered in his sole name.

5 Regarding properties comprised in Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street, Kampala and House
No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410
Folio 18, Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that they are also not matrimonial
property because they belong to FRK Communications Ltd.

10 Court’s Consideration
Courts have provided guidance on what amounts to matrimonial property and how
it should be distributed.

In the case of Julius Rwabinumi versus Hope Bahimbisomwe SCCA No. 10 of

2009 which cited with approval the approach adopted by Bbosa J (as she then was)
15 in Muwanga versus Kintu High Court Divorce Appeal No. 135 of 1997
(unreported), Justice Bbosa observed thus:

“Matrimonial property is understood differently by different people. There is always property

which the couple choose to call home. There may be property which may be acquired separately
by each spouse before or after marriage. Then there is property which a husband may hold in
20 trust for the clan. Each of these should in my view be considered differently. The property to
which each spouse should be entitled is that property which the parties choose to call home and
which they jointly contribute…”

It was further pointed out in the above Court decision that what amounts to
25 contribution to earn a spouse a share in the property may be direct and monetary or
indirect and non-monetary.

9
 In the case of Rwabinumi (Supra), Hon. Justice Esther Kisaakye further observed
thus:
“In my view, the Constitution of Uganda (1995), while recognizing the right to equality of men
and women in marriage and at its dissolution, also reserved the constitutional right of
5 individuals, be they married or not, to own property either individually or in association with
others under Article 26 (1) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995). This means that even in the
context of marriage, the right to own property individually is preserved by our Constitution as
is the right of an individual to own property in association with others, who may include a
spouse, children, siblings or even business partners. If indeed the framers of our constitution
10 wanted to take away the right of married persons to own separate property in their individual
names, they would have explicitly said so…I am aware that any married person, in pursuance
to the marriage vows he or she has made in church or in any other marriage ceremony, is at
liberty to execute a legal instrument and to transfer into joint or sole ownership land and/or
property he or she held prior to the marriage in favour of his or her spouse, either at the time of
15 contracting the marriage or any time after the marriage has been celebrated. Similarly, a spouse
can also transfer into joint or sole ownership property he or she individually acquired during
marriage. In such a case, the spouse, in whose favour the transfer of land has been made, would
clearly be entitled to register the land in his or her names or in the couple’s joint names as the
transfer instrument may state. If this is not done as is the case in most cases, then the Courts
20 will continue in divorce cases where ownership or sharing of property is at issue, to determine
each case based on the Constitution of Uganda; the applicable marriage and divorce law in
force at the time, in order to make the determination whether the property in question is marital
property or individual property acquired prior to or during the marriage and to determine
whether such property should be divided either in equal shares or otherwise, as the facts of the
25 each case would dictate.”

In the case of Kamore versus Kamore [2000] 1 EA 81 which was cited in Ayiko
Mawa Solomon versus Lekuru Annet Ayiko High Court Divorce Cause No. 1 of
2015, the Court of Appeal of Kenya presumed equality in two properties registered
30 in the name of the husband and wife jointly saying at page 85 thus:

10
 “Where property is acquired during the course of coverture and is registered in the joint names
of both spouses the Court in normal circumstances must take it that such property being a family
asset is acquired in equal shares”.

5 In Ayiko Mawa Solomon (supra), Court further observed that:

“Where the disputed property is not so registered in the joint names of the spouses but is
registered in the name of one spouse, the beneficial share of each spouse would ultimately
depend on their proven respective proportions of financial contributions either direct or indirect
towards the acquisition of the property” (Emphasis is mine)
10

From the above Court decisions, I make the following deductions:

(a) Every individual has a right to own property;
(b) The parties to a marriage may enter into the marriage with their individual
properties;
15 (c) Upon entry into marriage, they may choose to have them transferred to their
spouse’s name solely or jointly in which case it becomes joint property;
(d) During the subsistence of the marriage, either of the spouse may acquire property
solely but chooses to register it in his/ her name jointly with his/ her spouse;
(e) The parties may jointly acquire property and register it in their joint names;
20 (f) Either of the spouse may acquire property individually and exclusively of the
other spouse;
(g) Either of the spouse may acquire property with other people other than their
spouse who may include children, siblings or business partners;
(h) The Courts will treat each of the above case scenarios differently when
25 confronted with a task of establishing whether or not a particular property is
matrimonial property or not;
(i) In instances where the property is in the sole names of one of the spouse, then
Courts are expected to look out for the contribution of the other spouse who is

11
 not registered on the property in the acquisition of the property in dispute.
(Emphasis added). The contribution may be monetary or non-monetary, direct or
indirect.

In the instant case, the undisputed evidence is that none of the properties is registered
5 in joint names of the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner. Properties comprised in FRV
346 Folio 20, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot No.63 Nakiwogo Road Entebbe, LRV 2384,
Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot
32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District, Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street, Kampala, and the
Farm land at Ntungamo District are registered in the sole name of the 1st Respondent.
10 The 1st Respondent in his evidence adduced the Certificates of Title and 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 were registered during the subsistence of the marriage
15 between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner. 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 (REX 8 and REX5). FRK was the purchaser on REX8 while
Paul Kagwa was the purchaser on REX 5. Both purchases took place before the 1 st
20 Respondent got married to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner insisted that though registered in the sole name of the 1st Respondent,
they were matrimonial property because the 1st Respondent made a representation to
her that upon their marriage, the properties became matrimonial property.
25

12
 On the contrary, the 1st Respondent denied having ever made such representation to
the Petitioner. He insisted that when he married the Petitioner, he made it clear to
her that he had children from the previous marriage and his properties belonged to
his children. According to him, both her and the Petitioner had separate property at
5 the time of the marriage and they agreed that each one of them retains their individual
property. It was the 1st Respondent’s evidence that the Petitioner had property in
Kiwatule and the 1st Respondent is not laying a claim on it. He wondered why the
Petitioner is laying a claim on the properties which are personal and are kept for his
children.
10

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.
If the 1st Respondent intended them to be matrimonial as the Petitioner wants this
Court to believe, he would have had them registered in joint names upon the
15 marriage especially given the fact that the 1st Respondent had children from his
previous marriage. This would have removed any doubt. In the absence of that, it is
my finding that at no time did the 1st Respondent intend to make the said properties
matrimonial property. It is also important to note that in Matrimonial Cause No. 23
of 2005 between the 1st Respondent and Ms. Jackline Muteteri, the above mentioned
20 properties were a subject of contention and the Court made a finding that they were
not matrimonial. I equally make the same finding.

I also need to point out that it was the uncontroverted evidence of the 1 st Respondent
that the cause for the breakup of the marriage between him and the Petitioner was
25 the latter’s constant demands to be registered on the properties. The 1 st Respondent
testified that when he refused to succumb to the Petitioner’s demands over property,

13
 she then became cruel to him and even abandoned him when he needed her because
he had then lost his job.

I will need to pay special attention to two properties namely: Plot No. 87 Bukoto
5 Street, Kampala and House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates because the
Petitioner claims to have made a contribution on their acquisition. I will analyze the
evidence to establish whether or not she made a contribution to entitle her to a share
therein. I also need to note that the court visited these two properties.

10 Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street

Regarding this property, the undisputed evidence as testified by the 1 st Respondent
and Mayanja Edwin Henry (RW2), the Business Administrator and videographer at
FRK Communications Ltd is that FRK Communications was a tenant on the property
from 2003 and the landlord was Oburu Dawson. During the subsistence of the
15 tenancy, the landlord offered the property for sale to FRK as a sitting tenant and
FRK accepted the offer. FRK then made initial cash deposits and on 22nd November,
2005, FRK secured a loan of UGX 91,000,000 from Housing Finance Bank to clear
the vendor’s balance. According to RW2, he was the one remitting the payments to
the bank on behalf of FRK. The Respondent produced the Letter of offer, a Sale
20 Agreement, and acknowledgment of receipt of payment (See: REX8, REX9,
REX12). They were all in the name of FRK and they were executed on dates before
16th December 20005 (the date of the marriage between the 1st Respondent and the
Petitioner). The Respondent also produced the letter of offer of the Mortgage from
Housing Finance Company of Uganda dated 15th November 2005 and a Mortgage
25 Deed which is also dated 22nd November 2005. (See: REX10 and REX11).

14
 It is important to note that whereas other documents relating to this property are in
the name of FRK, the Letter of offer of the mortgage, the Mortgage Deed and the
Certificate of Title are in the name of the 1 st Respondent. The 1st Respondent
explained that by this time, the Directors of FRK were out of the country for studies
5 and they needed the mortgage urgently and the directors authorized him to acquire
the Mortgage. He has since signed a transfer of the said property to FRK.

The Petitioner on the other hand insisted she gave spousal consent and adduced in
her Trial Bundle, a document with no description and bearing the name “PEACE
10 UHIRIWE KAGWA” giving spousal consent and dated 8th November 2005. The
mortgage Deed which the 1st Respondent adduced (REX11) did not have the name
or signature of a spouse. The 1st Respondent wondered how the Petitioner could have
given spousal consent on 8th November 2005 when they were not yet married.

15 The Petitioner also testified that she deposited UGX 8,000,000 on the account of the
1st Respondent towards the payment of the mortgage. The 1 st Respondent on the
other hand heavily disputed that claim and stated that he is the one who gave UGX
8,000,000 to the Petitioner which was meant to clear a cheque that he had issued to
Nina interiors. The 1st Respondent testified that he went with the Petitioner to Nina
20 interiors to by furniture and he had cash of UGX 8,000,000 but Nina interiors
preferred payment by cheque. He then issued a cheque to Nina interiors of UGX
8,000,000 and gave the cash to the Petitioner to deposit it on his account so as to
offset the cheque. Infact, the Petitioner attached on her Trial Bundle, a Receipt from
Nina Interiors dated 6th July 2006 for UGX 8,000,000 for sofa set and bed and it is
25 in the name of Mr. Paul Kagwa (1st Respondent).

15
 In light of the above, it is my finding that the above property was fully purchased by
FRK before the marriage between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner. The
mortgage was advanced to the 1st Respondent before he got married to the Petitioner
and I have also wondered why the Petitioner claimed to have given spousal consent
5 towards the acquisition of the mortgage by even attempting to adduce a document
when she was not yet a spouse at the time the mortgage was acquired.

It is also my finding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that UGX 8,000,000
which she deposited on the 1st Respondent’s account was meant to clear the
10 mortgage. On the contrary, I find the explanation offered by the 1 st Respondent as to
how the Petitioner came to deposit the money on his account to be more believable.
I also wish to add that while at the locus, the Petitioner clearly stated that she did not
make any contribution on this property. I therefore, find that property Plot No. 87
Bukoto Street belongs to FRK and is therefore not matrimonial.
15

House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo
FRV 410 Folio 18
Concerning the property comprised in House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing
Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18, the undisputed evidence
20 is that both the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner lived in the house as their marital
home from July 2006 to November 2013 when the Petitioner left the home alleging
cruelty and adultery on the part of the 1 st Respondent. Be that as it may, the 1st
Respondent adduced evidence to the effect that the property was acquired by FRK
Communications Ltd and registered in the name of FRK Communications Ltd which
25 later transferred it in the name of Faith Kagwa (3rd Respondent).

16
 Norah Beata Kahimakazi Kagwa who testified as RW4 stated that she and her sister
Diana Nyirabageni Kagwa are the directors of FRK Communications Ltd which was
incorporated in 2002. She stated that sometime in 2004, she went with her young
sister Faith (the 3rd Respondent) to visit the late Bishop Barnabas who was then
5 living in Lubowa estate, he gave them a tour in the estate and they identified the said
house which was then a shell. She then agreed with her sister Diana who was also a
co-director in FRK to channel some of the company profits to acquire the said
property for their young sister, the 3rd Respondent. It was her evidence that FRK Ltd
then engaged National Housing Finance with the aim of acquiring the property and
10 they were informed that the shell house would cost One Hundred and Thirty-Five
Million Shillings only (UGX 135,000,000).

On 11th April 2005, FRK Ltd expressed interest to acquire the property, paying a
deposit of Forty Million Shillings only (UGX 40,000,000). In proof of that, the
15 Respondent adduced the evidence of the letter expressing the interest to buy dated
11th April 2005 and the same was admitted as REX 20 (a). For purposes of clarity, I
will reproduce the contents of the said letter which read as follows:
“RE: SHELL HOUSE NO. 66 A
FRK Communications Ltd would like to acquire House No. 66 A on Plot 1053 Lubowa 108
20 Housing Estate under the terms and conditions of NH&CC Ltd mortgage scheme.
We hereby enclose a cheque (No.002002) of U Shs. 40,000,000 (Forty Million Shillings only) as
initial deposit to service the mortgage.

Sincerely,
Andrew Kwizera
25 ADMINISTRATION MANAGER”

17
 The evidence adduced further revealed that the 1st Respondent is neither a director
nor a shareholder in FRK Communications Ltd but a company Secretary. He also
testified that he was given the house to live therein with his wife, the Petitioner by
the Directors of FRK who are his biological daughters. He insisted he has never
5 owned that property and therefore, it cannot be matrimonial property.

The 1st Respondent further adduced evidence of the offer letter made by National
Housing and Construction Company Ltd to FRK Ltd to the attention of Andrew
Kwizeera dated April 19, 2005 which was admitted as REX 20 (a).
10

The 1st Respondent also adduced evidence of payment of the subsequent payments
by FRK Ltd to National Housing and Construction company to finalize the purchase
of the property which were all in September 2005 by cheque. It was also the evidence
of the 1st Respondent that National Housing Company then handed over the shell
15 house to FRK Ltd on 10/11/2005. In proof of this, he adduced a letter dated as such
and it was admitted as REX 21. Andrew Kwizeera received the property on behalf
of FRK Communications.

The property was then registered in the name of FRK Ltd on 17 th September 2010
20 and later in the name of Faith Kagwa on 20th February 2012 as per the Certificate of
Title which was admitted as REX 23. The above documents were admitted without
contestation from the Petitioner and I also had the opportunity of looking at the
original documents to confirm their authenticity. I find this to be uncontested
evidence in confirming that the property in issue was acquired by FRK Ltd and this
25 was before the 1st Respondent married the Petitioner.

18
 The Petitioner testified that the 1st Respondent informed her that he had acquired
that property in the name of FRK Ltd because he was a civil servant and he did not
want to put it in his name. She also testified that she kept on asking him about the
Certificate of Title and he kept dodging until later when she learnt that the 1 st
5 Respondent had fraudulently transferred the property in the name of FRK Ltd and
later to Faith Kagwa (3rd Respondent).

I have considered the Petitioner’s claim in light of the undisputed documentary

evidence to the effect that FRK Ltd acquired the property before the 1st Respondent
10 married the Petitioner and I find that the Petitioner’s claims lack merit. If FRK
acquired the property as this Court has found out, then there was nothing to prohibit
FRK Ltd from registering it in her (3rd Respondent’s) name later despite the fact that
the Petitioner was then living on the same property with the 1st Respondent as a
couple.
15

From the adduced evidence, it is my finding that though the 1 st Respondent and the
Petitioner lived on the above property as husband and wife and though they chose to
call it home, neither of them owns it. It therefore cannot be said to be Matrimonial
Property. This Court is even unable to lift the veil of incorporation because from the
20 Articles and Memorandum of Association, the 1 st Respondent is neither a
shareholder nor a director in FRK. The Directors/Shareholders are Diana
Nyirabageni Kagwa and Norah Beata Kahimakazi Kagwa as per REX 18. From the
Certificate of Incorporation, FRK is a company limited by shares and it was
incorporated on the 11th day of January 2002 more than three years before the
25 marriage between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner. (see REX 17).

19
 The Petitioner contended that she made a contribution on this property. She stated
that when she got married to the 1st Respondent, the said property was a shell at the
Wall plate and together with the 1st Respondent, they completed it and started staying
there as their matrimonial home. It was also the Petitioner’s evidence that during her
5 marriage with the 1st Respondent, her family did not ask for dowry from the 1 st
Respondent and the reason for that was to allow the couple use what would have
meant for the dowry to complete the matrimonial home. This evidence was
supported by her two witnesses.

10 On the other hand, the 1st Respondent did not deny the fact that he did not pay dowry
but argued that the Petitioner informed him that it is the tradition of the family not
to ask for dowry from the intending suitors because they should not be seen to sell
their daughters but had nothing to do with completing the matrimonial house. The
1st Respondent also insisted that he came to occupy the house with the Petitioner
15 when it was fully completed and what was remaining was to connect electricity and
also furnish the house. The 1st Respondent further testified that when FRK gave him
a house to stay in, water had been connected but electricity had not yet been
connected and he requested the Petitioner to apply for electricity because he was
busy and that explains why the electricity bill comes in the name of the Petitioner.
20

In a further effort to prove her contribution to the Lubowa House, the Petitioner
adduced Invoice No. 27618 dated 28th June 2006 from Luwero Industries Ltd
addressed to her for door frames, serving window frame, cupboard door frame, and
wardrobe door frames all totaling Three Million Four Hundred and Fifty-Seven
25 Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Five Shillings (UGX 3,457,785). She also
availed a corresponding Delivery Note.

20
 The 1st Respondent on the other hand insisted that the Petitioner did not purchase
those items for the Lubowa house. He contended that in the event she purchased
them, she could have taken them to her house she was constructing in Kiwatule. The
1st Respondent adduced evidence of a Statement of Search (REX15) for Block 217
5 Plot 112 land at Kiwatule registered in the name of Peace Uhiriwe on 2nd September
2008.

I need to note that Counsel for the 1st Respondent objected to the tendering in of
those documents and insisted he needed to look at the originals. Counsel for the
10 Petitioner then later adduced “certified copies” of the same documents with the
stamp of Luwero Industries Kampala with the following words:
“We would like to confirm that this is a true copy of an invoice for the items we delivered to the
site in Lubowa Housing Estate”

15 It is my considered view that this is an afterthought because the documents did not
indicate the destination of the items and the same were authored on 28th June 2006.
I therefore, wonder how someone who purported to certify them on 8 th June 2023
would claim to remember where the items were delivered.

20 In light of the evidence of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner was constructing in
Kiwatule and in the absence of the destination of the items on the documents
themselves, it creates doubt and it is my finding that the Petitioner has not proved to
the satisfaction of the Court that the said items were actually delivered to Lubowa
and put on the house in issue.
25

During the locus visit, the Petitioner testified that she purchased tiles and paint from
Nakasero and would also supervise the builders. However, she did not adduce any

21
 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. The evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2 to the effect
5 that the house belonged to both the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner is in my view
not satisfactory in light of the overwhelming documentary evidence that the property
belonged to FRK Ltd.

I also believe that it was logical and reasonable for PW1 and PW2 to believe that the
10 house belonged to the couple because the couple occupied it when it was new and
immediately upon its completion and possibly the 1st Respondent did not disclose to
them that it was not his property. I am also unable to agree with the Petitioner that
non-payment of dowry by the 1st Respondent is her contribution to the matrimonial
home. This is because the 1st Respondent denied that and the Petitioner could not
15 quantify how much money her family forfeited as dowry for it to amount to
contribution towards the completion of their matrimonial home.

In light of the above, it is the finding of this Court, that the Petitioner did not prove
that she contributed to the acquisition of the property in Lubowa whether direct or
20 indirect to entitle her to a share therein.

In the premises, I find that the property comprised in House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa
Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 is also not
matrimonial property.
25

Resultantly, issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.

22
 However, among the receipts that the Petitioner attached on her Trial Bundle for
items used to furnish the house, Receipt dated 26/6/2006 for Two Million Shillings
(UGX 2,000,000) as a deposit on curtains and Receipt No. 13385 dated 6/7/2006 for
Eight Hundred Thousand Shillings (UGX800,000) as final payment on curtains are
5 in the name of Peace Kagwa (Petitioner). It is therefore, my finding that she has
proved that she paid for the curtains to the tune of UGX 2,800,000, and the 1st
Respondent is hereby ordered to make a refund of that money to the Petitioner.

Issue 3: In the alternative, whether the Petitioner acquired any interest in the
10 above properties by way of proprietary estoppel?
In the alternative to issue 2, Counsel for the Petitioner while relying on the cases of
Ibaga Taratizio versus Tarakpe Faustina HCCA No.004 of 2017 and Haji Musa
Kigongo versus Olive Kigongo Divorce Cause No. 295 of 2015 submitted that if the
above properties did not amount to matrimonial property, then the Petitioner
15 acquired a valid interest in the property by way of proprietary estoppel. According
to him, the 1st Respondent made the Petitioner believe that she was entitled to an
interest in the properties.

On the contrary, Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the Petitioner did not
20 acquire any interests in any of those properties because the 1 st Respondent did not
make any representations to the Petitioner pertaining to any of the properties.

Court’s consideration
The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is one of the forms of estoppel by representation
25 and it may arise where a person has by word or conduct made to another a clear and
unequivocal representation of fact, either with knowledge of its falsehood or with
the intention that it should be acted upon or has so conducted himself that another,
23
 would, as a reasonable person, understand that a certain representation of fact was
intended to be acted upon, and the other person has acted upon such representation
and thereby altered his position. In such circumstances an estoppel arises against the
party who made the representation, and he or she is not allowed to aver that the fact
5 is otherwise than he represented it to be. (See: Paragraph 1065 Halsbury’s Laws
of England, Vol. 16 (2)

An estoppel may arise by convention; where the parties have agreed between
themselves to act on a common assumption whether or not it is in fact true. (See
10 Paragraph 1065 Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 16 (2), Haji Musa Kigongo
versus Olive Kigongo Civil Suit No. 295 of 2015 and Ibaga Taratizio versus
Tarakpe Faustina Civil Appeal No. 0004 of 2017).

In the instant case, whereas the Petitioner testified that the 1st Respondent told her
15 that upon marriage all the property became matrimonial, the 1st Respondent
vehemently denied having ever made such a representation. He insisted that he made
it clear to the Petitioner that the properties registered in his sole name belonged to
his children and that the parties agreed that each should maintain the properties
owned individually and that is why he was not laying a claim on the Petitioner’s
20 property in Kiwatule (REX15) even when it was transferred into the Petitioner’s
name during the subsistence of the marriage.

It was also the 1st Respondent’s contention that the main reason for the conflict
between him and the Petitioner was because of the property. According to him, the
25 Petitioner put him on so much pressure to register the properties in both names and
when he declined, the Petitioner then became very cruel. In fact, one of the remedies

24
 sought by the 1st Respondent in his Cross-Petition is that the Court should prohibit
the Petitioner from harassing him over property.

Upon analysis of the assembled evidence, I find that the Petitioner has not adduced
5 sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that indeed the 1 st
Respondent made a representation to her that the properties became matrimonial or
joint property upon marriage. It is my considered view that if the 1st Respondent
indeed intended the Petitioner to have an interest in the property, he should have
effected the transfers upon marriage. The fact that he kept the property registered in
10 his sole name is reason to believe that he intended and desired to remain a sole
owner. As enunciated in the Rwabinumi case (Supra), the 1st Respondent has a right
to own properties in his sole name though married.

Regarding the Lubowa property, it is not in dispute that the couple lived in it as their
15 marital home. However, the 1st Respondent in his evidence insisted that he informed
the Petitioner clearly that the property belonged to FRK and they were living in it
temporarily. It was also the evidence of the Petitioner that she was aware that the
said property was acquired in the name of FRK. She testified that when she asked
the 1st Respondent why the property was acquired in the name of FRK, the 1 st
20 Respondent informed her that he did not want to acquire properties in his name
because he was a civil servant. However, as already noted above, the 1st Respondent
is neither a shareholder nor a director in FRK. He is only a company Secretary. The
Petitioner ought to have known and realized that though she was living on the
property at Lubowa, neither herself nor the 1st Respondent owned the property. It
25 was owned by FRK and even FRK went ahead and had it registered in its name when
the couple was living therein.

25
 The instant case is distinguishable from the Haji Musa Kigongo case (supra). In
Haji Musa Kigongo case, both Haji Musa Kigongo and Olive Kigongo (defendant)
lived in the disputed property together as husband and wife for almost 26 years; the
defendant adduced evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that she was involved in
5 supervising construction works of the house which later became the marital home
and gave up on looking for land where she could build a home for herself. Most
importantly, the property was registered in the name of Haji Musa Kigongo and the
defendant who believed that she was a wife and also believed that she had an interest
in the property. The facts of the instant case are different in that the suit property
10 was neither acquired nor registered in the name of the 1st Respondent. The adduced
evidence reveal that by the time the Petitioner got married to the 1 st Respondent,
FRK had already acquired the property and the Petitioner was aware that the property
was acquired by FRK.

15 Besides, unlike Olive Kigongo who adduced evidence to prove her contribution of
supervising the construction, the Petitioner failed to adduce evidence to that effect
to the satisfaction of the Court that she made any contribution.

In light of the above therefore, it is my finding that the Petitioner cannot claim an
20 interest in any of the properties in issue by the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. This
alternative issue is therefore answered in the negative.

Issue 4: Whether the transfer of property comprised in House No. 66 Type A,

Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 to
25 the 3rd Respondent was lawful.

26
 Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transfer of the above mentioned
property from FRK to Faith Kagwa (3rd Respondent) was not only unlawful but also
fraudulent. According to him, the Petitioner kept on asking the 1 st Respondent for
the Certificate of Title so as to have the same registered in both names but the 1st
5 Respondent did not heed until she learnt that the same had been registered in the
name of FRK and later in the name of the 3rd Respondent. He also submitted that
while transferring the property, the same was undervalued thereby making the
transaction fraudulent.

10 On the other hand, Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents contended that the transfer
of the property was neither unlawful nor fraudulent. He insisted that the property
was bought by FRK which was at liberty to transfer the same the 3rd Respondent. He
also argued that FRK gave the property as a gift and according to Norah Kagwa
(RW4), the value indicated on the Transfer was merely to facilitate the transfer.
15

Court’s Consideration
As already exhaustively discussed above, the property in issue was acquired by FRK
which is a legal entity with a right to own property. In her undisputed evidence, RW4
testified that when her and her sister identified the property, their intention was to
20 acquire it for their young sister Faith Kagwa (3rd Respondent) which they gave to
her as a gift.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the 3rd Respondent did not produce any
evidence to dispute the testimony of the Petitioner and therefore the Court should
25 find that the Petitioner has proved a case against her. However, it is the finding of
this Court that even in the absence of any evidence adduced by the 3 rd Respondent,

27
 all the evidence adduced by the Respondent witnesses is sufficient to confirm that
the 3rd Respondent is not at fault in any way.

In light of the above therefore, the transfer of property comprised in House No. 66
5 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio
18 to the 3rd Respondent was lawful. Issue No. 4 has also been answered in the
affirmative.

Issue 5: What remedies are available to the parties?

10 The Petitioner sought for the following reliefs:
i) The marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent be dissolved;
ii) The registration of the 3rd Respondent as proprietor of the matrimonial home,
House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410,
Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 be cancelled and the property be registered in
15 both the names of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent as tenants in common
in equal shares;
iii) The properties comprised in 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 and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block
20 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District be jointly registered in both
the names of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent as tenants in common in
equal shares;
iv) The 1st Respondent be ordered to hand over all the cows in his Ntungamo
farmland that belong to the Petitioner;
25 v) The 2nd Respondent pays general damages to the Petitioner for committing
adultery with the 1st Respondent;

28
 vi) The 2nd Respondent pays interest on (v) above at the Court rate from date of
Judgment till full payment.
vii) The Petitioner be awarded permanent alimony by the 1st Respondent;
viii) The Respondents pay costs incidental to the Petition; and
5 (ix) This Honorable Court makes any other order it deems fit in the circumstances.

i) The marriage between the Petitioner and the first Respondent be

dissolved;
The Petitioner petitioned the Court for the dissolution of the marriage between her
10 and the Respondent on grounds of adultery with Diana Natukunda (2nd Respondent)
It is important to note that Diana Natukunda did not file any Answer to the Petition
and did not appear in Court. The Petitioner, apart from alleging that the 1st
Respondent committed adultery with Diana Natukunda, she did not adduce any
evidence to support her claim to the satisfaction of the Court. However, during cross
15 examination, the 1st Respondent admitted having produced a son in the name of
Joseph with a one Doreen Arinaitwe during the subsistence of the marriage between
him and the Petitioner.

In light of the above therefore, it is the finding of this Court that the 1st Respondent
20 is guilty of adultery not with Natukunda Diana but with Doreen Arinaitwe.
Consequently, the marriage between the Petitioner and the 1 st Respondent is
accordingly dissolved on the ground of adultery by the 1st Respondent.

(ii) The registration of the 3rd Respondent as proprietor of the

25 matrimonial home, House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates,
Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 be cancelled and the

29
 property be registered in both the names of the Petitioner and the 1st
Respondent as tenants in common in equal shares.
In light of the finding of this Court that the transfer of property comprised in House
No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV
5 410 Folio 18 to Faith Kagwa was lawful, Court declines to grant this remedy and
the prayer is accordingly dismissed.

(iii) The properties comprised in FRV 346 Folio 20, Plot No. 87 Bukoto
Street, Kampala, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot No.63 Nakiwogo Road
10 Entebbe, LRV 2384, Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV
277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District
be jointly registered in both the names of the Petitioner and the 1 st
Respondent as tenants in common in equal shares.
The Petitioner failed to prove that she has any interest in any of the properties
15 described above and this remedy cannot be granted. This prayer is equally dismissed.

(iv) The 1st Respondent be ordered to hand over all the cows in his
Ntungamo farmland that belong to the Petitioner.
Whereas the Petitioner stated that she has ten (10) cows in the Ntungamo Farm, the
20 1st Respondent insisted that the Petitioner did not have any cow there apart from one
cow which was given to both of them as a marriage gift and he is ready to hand it
over to her.

Regarding the issue of the cows, the Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to prove
25 that she has ten (10) cows in the Ntungamo Farm. No evidence was also adduced as
to whether the one cow given as a gift has since increased as a result of reproduction
considering the fact that the marriage took place in December 2005.
30
 In light of the above, this Court is constrained to order for the release of only one
cow which the 1st Respondent agreed to. The 1st Respondent is hereby ordered to
hand over the one (1) cow to the Petitioner.

5 (v) The 2nd Respondent pays general damages to the Petitioner for
committing adultery with the 1st Respondent.
As already indicated, the 2nd Respondent did not take part in these proceedings and
Petitioner did not adduce any evidence against her and this prayer is accordingly
dismissed.
10

(vi) The Petitioner be awarded permanent alimony by the 1st Respondent.

The Petitioner prayed for permanent alimony to be paid to her by the 1 st Respondent.
The 1st Respondent opposed the prayer for alimony and argued that the Petitioner is
not entitled to alimony because whereas he is a retired civil servant and currently
15 unemployed, the Petitioner is gainfully employed by UNICEF as an Administrator.

Court’s Consideration
In the case of Ayiko Mawa Solomon versus Lekuru Annet Ayiko High Court
Divorce Cause No. 0001 of 2015 (Supra), Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru had this to
20 say on alimony:
“Marriage is viewed today as a shared partnership with important economic and non-economic
expectations. Alimony conceptualizes spousal support as compensation earned by the
economically disadvantaged spouse (normally the wife) through marital investments and as a
means of eliminating distorting financial incentives in marriage, as well as a way to relieving
25 financial need. Under Section 24(1) of the Divorce Act, the Court may, on a Decree Absolute
declaring a marriage to be dissolved obtained by a wife, order the husband to secure to the wife
such sum of money, as having regard to her fortune, if any, to the ability of the husband, and
the conduct of the parties, it thinks reasonable. Alimony provides a secondary remedy and is

31
 available where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved by
way of equitable distribution of the matrimonial property. The purpose of alimony is not to
reward one party and punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the
person who is unable to support herself through appropriate employment are met. It is an order
5 designed to afford economic justice between the parties.”

From the above Court decision, it is clear that the purpose of alimony is to ensure
the wife who may be unable to meet her needs after the divorce is supported by the
husband who is able to do that. The facts of the instant case do not warrant an Order
10 of alimony because the Petitioner is gainfully employed by UNICEF and is earning
relatively well. This prayer is therefore not granted.

The 1st Respondent also filed a cross petition and sought the following remedies:
(a) The marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent be nullified;
15 (b) A declaration that the 3rd Respondent as a registered proprietor of the property
situate at House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing Estates, Plot 1053 Block
410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 was legal;
(c) A declaration that comprised in FRV 346 Folio 20, Plot No. 87 Bukoto Street,
Kampala, LRV 3026 Folio 14, Plot No.63 Nakiwogo Road Entebbe, LRV
20 2384, Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV 277, Folio 25, Block
415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District are not subject to division;
(d) An order stopping the Petitioner from harassing the 1st Respondent about
property;
(e) Costs of the suit and other orders.
25

(a) The marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent be nullified.

32
 This Court already made a finding that the marriage between the 1st Respondent and
the Petitioner was valid. This remedy is therefore not granted and the prayer is
accordingly dismissed.

5 The rest of the remedies have been dealt with while discussing the remedies under
the Petition.

Conclusion
Consequently, both the Petition and the Cross Petition partly succeed and the
10 following declarations and orders are hereby made:

(a) The marriage solemnized between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner on
16th December 2005 at Our Lady Queen of Virgins Kisubi Catholic Church
was valid;
(b) The marriage between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner is hereby
15 dissolved on the ground of adultery of the 1 st Respondent and a Decree Nisi
is accordingly issued;
(c) The properties comprised in House No. 66 Type A, 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
20 Road Entebbe, LRV 2384, Folio 5, Plot 3 on Sesse Walk, Entebbe and LRV
277, Folio 25, Block 415-416 Plot 32 at Bugiri Kisubi, Mpigi District and the
Farm land at Ntungamo District are not matrimonial property and are
therefore not subject to division;
(d) The transfer of the property situate at House No. 66 Type A, Lubowa Housing
25 Estates, Plot 1053 Block 410, Kyadondo FRV 410 Folio 18 to Faith Kagwa
(3rd Respondent) by FRK was lawful;

33
 (e) The 1st Respondent shall pay Two Million Eight Hundred Shillings only
(UGX 2,800,000) to the Petitioner as refund for curtains not later than 30 days
from the date of this Judgment;
(f) The Petitioner did not acquire any interest in any of the properties by way of
5 proprietary estoppel;
(g) The 1st Respondent is hereby ordered to hand over the one (1) cow to the
Petitioner not later than 30 days from the date of this Judgment;
(h) Each party shall bear its own costs.

10 Dated at Kampala this 25th day of April 2024.

.................................................
Alice Komuhangi Khaukha
15 JUDGE
25/04/2024

20

34