Uganda Case Law

Nyabayango v Kabasinguzi & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012)

Nyabayango v Kabasinguzi & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012) [2014] UGHCFD 37 (1 July 2014)

Court

HC: Family Division (Uganda)

Case number

High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2012

Judge

Tuhaise, J

The High Court overruled a preliminary objection, holding it could apply constitutional provisions, the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and the settlement clause did not bar suit.

• Restitution Of Conjugal Rights
• Seduction Of Spouse
• Cause Of Action
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Void Contracts
• Constitutional Rights In Marriage

Kakar v Kumari (Divorce Cause No. 16 of 1942)

Kakar v Kumari (Divorce Cause No. 16 of 1942) [1955] EACA 362 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Divorce Cause No. 16 of 1942

Judge

Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya)

The court determined that the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, by its definition of marriage, applies only to monogamous unions. Since Hindu marriages are not monogamous, the Ordinance does not extend to them. Furthermore, Article 4(1) of the Kenya Order in Council does not confer jurisdiction to the court to grant restitution of conjugal rights in respect of polygamous Hindu marriages. The court relied on authoritative texts and previous case law to confirm that the relief sought is unavailable under the current legal framework. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Conjugal Rights
• Hindu Marriage
• Jurisdiction
• Polygamous Marriage

Grafton v Grafton

Grafton v Grafton (Cause No. 30 of 1943) [1944] EACA 16 (1 January 1944)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cause No. 30 of 1943

Judge

Bartley J

The court found that the husband's allegations of cruelty, even when accepted as truthful and allowing for exaggeration, did not meet the legal threshold established in Russell v. Russell, which requires bodily harm, injury to health, or reasonable apprehension thereof. The medical evidence of acute anxiety was insufficient, as the parties had not cohabited for six months prior to the diagnosis, and there was no corroborative evidence of physical or mental injury directly attributable to the wife's conduct during cohabitation. The wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was also di…

Source excerpt

• Divorce
• Restitution Of Conjugal Rights
• Cruelty
• Judicial Separation
• Matrimonial Offences