False accusations in marriage amount to cruelty, court rules 

Making false and frivolous accusations against your partner in a relationship amounts to cruelty, the High Court has ruled.
The Family Division of the High Court yesterday held that unsubstantiated accusations leveled against a partner are a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental well-being of a relationship.
Justice Celia Nagawa ruled that such allegations not only affect a relationship and make it impossible for a man to continue to live with his wife, but also affect the couple’s relationship with their children.

The court made the decision while dissolving the marriage between Mr Igeme Katagwa and Ms Anna Sarah Nalwoga citing cruelty. According to court documents, Mr Katagwa and Ms Nalwoga got married on June 22, 2009 and had three children.
However, their marriage later broke.Through his lawyers, Mr Katagwa told court that during the marriage, Ms Nalwoga inflicted cruelty on both him and their children in the form of physical violence and emotional abuse including the use of abusive and/or obscene and vulgar language.

Court documents show that Ms Nalwoga, with malice, made false reports of domestic violence, cruelty, and sexual abuse against her husband which resulted in his arrest and subsequent release on police bond.
Justice Nagawa ruled that Ms Nalwoga was guilty of the marital offense of cruelty.

The judge held that the court was satisfied that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture, or distress on the petitioner (Mr Katagwa).
“To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing an injustice to both parties,” she said.

The court was presented with a flash drive containing audio recordings in which Ms Nalwoga uses abusive, torturous, and inhumane language directed at both her husband and children.

Not happy
“In the audio, the respondent (Nalwoga) curses at the petitioner and their children stating that they will die in pain, not amount to anything, and other profanities that this court will not reiterate. The respondent’s assertions of cruelty on the part of the petitioner are based on the allegations discussed above for which she has failed to discharge her burden of proof,” Justice Nagawa said.

“The unsubstantiated accusations leveled against the petitioner are a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental well-being of the petitioner. Such aspersions are sufficient to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the grant of a decree Nisi,” she added.

On the issue of sharing the matrimonial property, Justice Nagawa acknowledged the fact that the case is a highly contentious matter, where various falsehoods have been presented by Ms Nalwoga and must be determined.
“The court finds that because the suit land was purchased solely by the petitioner before his marriage to the respondent and because he was also responsible for the majority of the financial contribution put up for the development of the houses on the suit property, he shall be entitled to 90 percent of the total value of the suit property,” the judge said.

Judge Nagawa ordered that Ms Nalwoga will be entitled to 10 percent of the total value of the suit property for her monetary contribution which included building the ramp and water tank on the small house, the Shs5m obtained from the sale of the land in Buddo Naggalabi, the unpaid care work, and the planting of the botanical garden, trees, flowers, and banana plantation.

“This is also in consideration of her non-monetary value addition to the property such as hiring help, improving the grounds of the home, the perimeter wall supervision and construction together with ensuring that they are well maintained,” she added.

She reasoned that while Article 31 (1) of the Constitution (1995) guarantees equality in the treatment of either the wife or husband at divorce, it does not, in “my opinion”, require that all property either individually or jointly acquired before or during the subsistence of marriage should in all cases be shared equally upon divorce.

The court found that the continued pursuit of the narrative that the petitioner sexually assaulted the children in question despite medical and police reports stating the contrary is both mentally abusive and traumatising to the children.

“The court considers the continued psychological trauma occasioned on these kids by their mother’s constant allegations, her demeanor in this court during the trial that demonstrated an inability to manage her anger, the audio recordings played before this court where the respondent spoke of her children in a manner that did not demonstrate parental love, affection or care and were a way no parent should speak of their children,” the judge ruled.
Justice Nagawa added that it would not be in the best interests of the children to award custody to their mother given her irrational and unmotherly behaviour.
The court has now ordered that each party shall pay for food, health and utility bills for the period the child is in their custody.

When court ruled on conjugal rights 
On March 21, a High Court judge ruled that denial of conjugal rights amounts to cruelty.
While dissolving a 10-year-old marriage,  Justice Celia Nagawa of the Family Division of the High Court also ruled that substance abuse, especially that which puts one’s spouse in danger extending to their livelihood and source of income, also amounts to cruelty.

“In this case, the Respondent (Nick Chiles Muramira) brought drugs to the petitioner’s (Harriet Generosa) place of employment. Infecting the petitioner with sexually transmitted infections, silent treatment and financial irresponsibility and fathering a child out of the marriage amounts to cruelty as they go beyond the ordinary wear and tear of married life,” the judge ruled.

She explained that cruelty may be mental and it may include injuries, reproaches, complaints, accusations, taunts, denial of conjugal rights among others. Mental cruelty is a state of mind; it is the feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, or frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other over a long period of time.

The court decision was in respect to approval of a divorce between Mr Muramira, a senior officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs based in Egypt and his estranged wife, Ms Generosa, an employee of Emirates based in Dubai.
“The petitioner underwent spinal fusion surgery and although the respondent was on leave in Uganda, he never made any attempt to visit her. The respondent denied the petitioner conjugal rights and failed to visit the petitioner in Dubai despite tickets purchased by her leading to the loss of a lot of money. This is as evidenced in the WhatsApp correspondences between the parties,” the court held.

Justice Nagawa held that the marriage between Muramira and Generosa broke down irretrievably that there was no point of keeping together parties that no longer want to be married.