Topic: Divorce – Recognition of marriage in Uganda, Court’s Jurisdiction in Divorce Petition
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2024
Case Number: Divorce Cause No. 111 of 2022
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Family Division)
Judge: Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa
Summary Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Buagu Ndugga Musazi sought to dissolve his marriage with the respondent, Nanyonga Susan.
The two got married on 15 December 2010 in Baltimore County, Maryland, USA.
The petitioner alleged that upon returning from a visit to Uganda in 2019, he found that the respondent had left their marital home and taken the children. Despite efforts to contact the respondent and various attempts through legal and family channels, the petitioner was unable to resolve the situation, leading to the current divorce petition.
The petitioner claimed constructive desertion, cruelty, negligence, and irresponsibility by the respondent, leading to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Main Legal Issues
- Whether there was a recognized marriage between the petitioner and the respondent under the Marriage Act of Uganda, Cap. 146.
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The Decision of the Court
The Court recognized the marriage conducted in Maryland, USA, but declined to recognize the marriage under the laws of Uganda and therefore concluded it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The petitioner adduced evidence of a marriage certificate for the marriage conducted in the USA but failed to adduce a marriage certificate for the marriage he alleged took place in Luweero District.
The petitioner also failed to adduce evidence that the certificate of marriage from the USA was registered with the Registrar of Marriages under Section 31 of the Marriage Act.
Section 31 (1) of the Marriage Act states that: “The registrar of marriages in each district shall forthwith register in a book to be kept in his or her office for that purpose, and to be called “The Marriage Register Book”, every certificate of marriage which shall be filed in his or her office, according to Form F in the First Schedule to this Act; and every such entry shall be made in the order of date from the beginning to the end of the book, and every entry so made shall be dated on the day on which it is so entered, and shall be signed by the registrar, and the book shall be indexed in such manner as is best suited for easy reference to it.”
The Court held that whereas citizens of Uganda or dual citizens of Uganda and another Jurisdiction can conduct a Marriage under the laws of another country, they must bring it into Jurisdiction by having it registered at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau.
Further, the Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that he was domiciled in Uganda. There was no evidence that he intended to make Uganda his permanent home for domicile purposes.
The court observed that both parties are habitually resident in the USA ie the Petitioner is a professor at Morgan States University and stays in Uganda for about two and a half months a year, and pays taxes in the USA.
Key Quote
“Without evidence which includes a Certificate of Marriage for the wedding alleged to have been performed in Uganda, there is no proof that any marriage was conducted between the Petitioner and the Respondent in August 2008 apart from the one that was conducted in Maryland USA. Besides a copy of the marriage certificate from Baltimore, Maryland, USA, there was no record of their marriage adduced before this court in the register of marriage in Uganda and yet this was strong evidence to prove the presumption of marriage. Whereas citizens of Uganda or dual citizens of Uganda and another Jurisdiction conduct a Marriage under the laws of another country, they must bring it into Jurisdiction by having it registered at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau. The parties in this case do not have proof that this Marriage was ever registered in Uganda” – Lady Justice Celia Nagawa.
Law Applied
- Marriage Act; Section 31.
- Divorce Act; General principles of Divorce.
Counsel on Record
For the Petitioner: Owakubariho Oscar Boban of M/S Oscar Associated Advocates
Conclusion
This case illustrates the importance of proper registration of marriages and domicile for jurisdictional purposes in divorce cases especially in international marriages.
The learned Judge also discussed the question of forum shopping in divorce matters; how individuals especially the wealthy, with connections to multiple countries might pursue a divorce in the jurisdiction with the most favorable divorce laws for them.
This occurs due to the differences in divorce laws and their financial and custodial consequences across various jurisdictions.
“Where the parties have close connections to more than one country, they may have the ability to pursue a divorce in one of several different jurisdictions, this is increasingly common, as people move internationally more than ever before. Yet the law on divorce differs considerably across different countries, from unilateral divorce on demand, to fault based divorce, to divorce after a period of separation, or a combination of these. Moreover, the financial consequences of the divorce, or the way in which child disputes are addressed, maybe significantly different in one country compared to another, consequently, it is common for wealthy parties to go on “forum shopping’; they look at which countries have jurisdiction to hear their case and file in the jurisdiction that is more favourable for them. Jurisdiction is a creature of statute. The court must consider its territorial jurisdiction in considering this Petition.” Justice Celia Nagawa stated.