Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas

1. TITLE:

Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11^th 2024.[1]

2. INTRODUCTION:

The Appellant was dissatisfied by the lower court’s decision when an appeal dated 14^th July, 2022 was filed and delivered on 18th July, 2022[2].

The judgment is significant because the court applied its discretion to determine whether joint custody of a child is lawful in the circumstances[3].

The court was also called to determine whether compensation to the Appellant by the Respondent would serve the best interests of the child in the circumstances[4].

The Appellate Court upheld the decision of the Trial Magistrate[5].

The Respondent was granted joint custody with the Appellant over Mya Nziima Namara so as to foster the relationship between father and daughter[6].

The potential negative impact on the child’s current and future wellbeing was taken into account before declining compensation to the Appellant[7].

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent was solemnized at the All Saints Cathedral on 29^th June 2013[8].

The Appellant alleged to have travelled to the United Kingdom after she got pregnant for the care and financial help she was not getting from the Respondent with his consent [9].

The Appellant alleged that the Respondent drove her to hospital and was informed of the birth of the child, Mya Nziima Namara but she was welcomed home by a locked door[10].

The Appellant tried to reach the Respondent in vain[11].

The Appellant claims the Respondent has only visited Mya once and made no further attempts to provide for her[12]. The Appellant raised the Mya in her house[13].

The Appellant solely looked after this child, before the Respondent filed for divorce[14].

The Respondent filed Divorce Cause No. 17 of 2021 at the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mengo seeking dissolution of the marriage and full custody of Mya[15].

The child was 7 years old[16].

The Respondent raised a contention that he did not consent to the Appellant’s travel to the United Kingdom at 6 months pregnant and she cut off all communication with him[17].

The Respondent’s family members informed him that the Appellant had given birth to a baby girl[18].

He is alleged to have made an effort to pay school fees for Mya which was futile as the appellant returned the money he sent[19].

The Respondent is said to have been frustrated by the Appellant’s actions and infidelity upon petitioning the court for divorce and sole custody of Mya[20].

The Appellant cross-petitioned the court for divorce, full custody of this child and recovery of expenses spent on the child[21].

The Appellant and Respondent consented to the dissolution of the marriage[22].

The decree nisi dissolving the marriage was issued on 21^st May, 2021[23].

The Magistrate Court granted to the Respondent gradual visitation rights after which joint custody would take effect[24]. The court declined to give the order for compensation sought by the Appellant for expenses incurred during the first seven years of Mya’s life[25].

4. LEGAL ISSUES:

Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

        5. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:

Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments;

1. Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

The Appellant submits that the learned Magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence before her when she arrived at a wrong decision on custody of the child[26].

The Appellant claims that the welfare principle had been ignored when sole or primary custody was not granted to her[27].

The Appellant put across the exceptional circumstances for the court to examine in order to grant sole or primary custody in her favor[28]. These include the Respondent denying Mya shelter for seven years, failing maintain Mya, using Mya in a dispute against the appellant, being a stranger to the child[29].

Counsel for the Appellant confirms that the evidence presented by her client was not referred to by the Trial Magistrate[30].

The Appellant also submits that the effect of the Respondent’s conduct was not evaluated[31].

The Appellant suggests that the visitation orders were not in Mya’s best interests because of the disruptiveness caused by the circumstances[32].

2. Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

The Respondent submits that she bore the burden of incurring the child’s expenses including living, education, medical for 10 years[33].

The court admitted the annual expenses incurred under “RE G” of the Record of Appeal[34].

The Appellant also contends that she still bears the responsibility of the child’s annual expenses to date[35].

Respondent’s Arguments;

1. Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

The Respondent submits that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated and addressed the guiding principles related to welfare of Mya before granting joint custody[36].

The Respondent also submits that he had not come across any exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of sole custody sought by the Appellant[37].

The Respondent contends that he was denied access and opportunities to get to know Mya by the Appellant[38].

The Respondent testifies that he has other children who are agemates to Mya and he intends for them to get along with each other[39].

The Respondent confirms that he’s income was stable to care for Mya[40].

2. Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

The Respondent submits that an order of compensation was not granted by court to the Appellant because family relations had to be built and maintained for the sake of the child[41].

Lower Court’s Decision;

1. Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

It is submitted that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration thus prioritizing the child’s best interests[42].

It is provided that every child has the right to live with their parent or guardian[43].

Furthermore, it is stated that all children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents[44].

It is established that parents hold the right to the custody of their children in an equal and similar manner[45].

It is demonstrated that the child’s delight to get to know her father from an interaction she shared with the Magistrate Grade 1 proved fulfilment of the child’s best interests[46].

It is established that a grant of sole custody should be an exceptional measure[47]. The decision about granting joint custody or denying it for the cons it may pause to the child’s welfare lies with court[48]. This grant must only be reserved for situations where there is evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse[49].

The court held that gradual visitation rights would develop a meaningful bond between the Respondent and his daughter after which both parents could have custody of Mya[50].

2. Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

The Court held that there is no need for compensation to the Appellant[51]. It is submitted that the trial Magistrate did not order monetary retroactive compensation by the Respondent to the Appellant in the circumstances[52]. This order was meant to foster and preserve the family relationships rather than undermine them[53].

It is submitted that the court is responsible for giving priority to the child’s best interests, foster positive family relationships, and ensure that child support obligations are fair and sustainable for both parents[54].

6. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

1. Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

It is established that the Appellate Court must put into mind the best interests of the child when resolving issues of custody[55]. The welfare principle is of primary or paramount consideration in the circumstances[56].

It is submitted that the Appellate Court may order a child to be removed from a parent after satisfying itself on evidence that such an order would serve the best interests of this child[57].

It is submitted that the right and duty of the Appellant and the Respondent to care for and bring up Mya should be taken into account[58].

It is provided that the Appellant and the Respondent have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of Mya[59].

The Appellate Court held that the best interests of the child must be the primary focus of court when considering whether or not to grant joint custody in the circumstances[60]. The court should only take caution about the child’s emotional and developmental wellbeing[61].

It is suggested that for custody of children to be in their best interests, their welfare is of paramount consideration[62]. The circumstances must not have any compelling reason for removal in the short term or the long term[63].

It is submitted that an interest to care for the child was expressed by her biological father[64].

The Court held that the two constitutionally guaranteed rights must be considered in conjunction with the child’s best interests with the latter being paramount[65]. It is suggested that there is no sufficient reason to prevent parental involvement from the Respondent[66].

2. Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

It is submitted that the best interests of the child are the court’s paramount consideration[67].

The Court held that the expenses incurred by the Appellant in the Respondent’s absence must be balanced against the potential negative impact on the child’s current and future wellbeing[68].

It is established that on review of the Respondent’s finances, he is unable to compensate the Appellant while meeting the child’s needs[69]. The intention of court is not punitive[70].

It is submitted that this retroactive compensation could not serve the child’s best interests[71].

It is suggested that any decision affecting child’s wellbeing must be guided by the welfare principle[72].

7. JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Decision;

1. Whether the court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya under the circumstances?

The court lawfully granted joint custody of Mya to both the Appellant and Respondent[73].

The appeal was dismissed[74].

The Appellant was denied the sole or primary custody over the child[75].

2. Whether the court ensured that the best interests of Mya can be met by the Respondent?

The court declined to grant compensation of past expenses to the Appellant[76].

The appeal was dismissed[77].

The Respondent would not be able to serve the best interests of the child if ordered to compensate the Appellant as well[78].

Ratio Decidendi;

The Appellate Court held that the welfare principle is of paramount consideration in such circumstances[79]. The ratio decidendi is that best interests of the child must be guided by this welfare principle[80].

8. CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

• Significance of the Decision;

The decision develops the need for court to apply its own discretion correctly[81].

The respondent’s absence in the child’s life since birth and inability to compensate the Appellant for expenses incurred is excused by court to meet the child’s best interests[82].

The child is able to have a future with good upbringing and development[83].

• Implications and Impact;

The Respondent is allowed to provide parental development to the child because they both expressed interest in doing so[84]. The welfare of the child cannot be neglected for compensation to the Appellant for expenses incurred[85]. This decision applies to the substantive law in the rights of the child under the Constitution and the best interests of the child under the welfare principle where the latter is paramount in achieving justice[86].

• Critical Evaluation;

The court’s reasoning has saved the relationship of a father and his daughter in the circumstances[87]. The court could not order the Respondent to compensate the Appellant for the expenses incurred in favor of the child’s current and future wellbeing[88]. The Appellant’s expenditure would have been compensated only if the Respondent’s finances could cater for her and the child[89]. The court had no alternative approach in the circumstances[90].

9. CONCLUSION:

The child’s best interests were met by court upon guiding principles of the welfare principle being adhered to[91]. This has allowed the child to develop a relationship with her father and mother[92]. The High Court applied its discretion to achieve justice[93]. The High Court relied on the written law in the Children Act[94] to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately[95].

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Cases:

Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024.

Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi Versus Harriet Kamakune (Civil Application No. 142 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 34.

Otto Methodius Pacific Versus Edyline Sabrina Pacific (HCCA No. 88 of 2013)

Twesiga (Infant) (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2008) [2008] UGHCFD 1 (16 September 2008)

Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 (UK Supreme Court)

Legislation:

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended

The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Civil Procedure Act, 1929. Cap. 282. (Uganda)

The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda)

[1] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[2] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1.

[3] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1.

[4] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[5] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[6] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[7] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[8] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 2.

[9]Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 2.

[10] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[11] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[12] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[13] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[14] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[15] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[16] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[17] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[18] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[19] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[20] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[21] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[22] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[23] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[24] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[25] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 3.

[26] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5.

[27] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5.

[28] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5.

[29] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5.

[30] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5.

[31] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 5-6.

[32] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[33] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[34] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[35] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[36] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[37] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[38] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[39] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[40] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[41] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[42] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). section 3: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[43] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). section 4: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[44] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, Article 34 (1): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 6.

[45] Rwabuhemba Tim Musinguzi Versus Harriet Kamakune (Civil Application No. 142 of 2009) [2009] UGCA 34: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[46] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[47] Otto Methodius Pacific Versus Edyline Sabrina Pacific (HCCA No. 88 of 2013): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[48] Otto Methodius Pacific Versus Edyline Sabrina Pacific (HCCA No. 88 of 2013): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[49] Otto Methodius Pacific Versus Edyline Sabrina Pacific (HCCA No. 88 of 2013): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[50] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 7.

[51] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[52] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[53] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[54] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 12.

[55] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 8.

[56] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 8.

[57] Twesiga (Infant) (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2008) [2008] UGHCFD 1 (16 September 2008): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 8.

[58] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, Article 31: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 8.

[59] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 18: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 8.

[60] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 9.

[61] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 9.

[62] Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 (UK Supreme Court): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 9.

[63] Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 (UK Supreme Court): Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 9.

[64] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 9.

[65] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 31 (4) and 34: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 10.

[66] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 10-11.

[67] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11.

[68] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 11-12.

[69] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 12.

[70] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 12.

[71] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 12-13.

[72] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 4: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 12-13.

[73] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[74] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[75] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[76] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[77] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[78] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[79] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[80] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 4: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[81] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 126 (2) (e).

[82] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[83] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 18.

[84] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[85] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3.

[86] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 31 (4) and 34: The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3 and 4.

[87] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[88] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[89] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[90] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[91] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda). Section 3 and 4: Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[92] Namara Ruth (Appellant) Versus Tukamwesiga Phenehas (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Arising out of Divorce Cause No. 17 Of 2021 at Mengo), High Court of Uganda at Kampala [Family Division], Judgement Before Hon. Lady Justice Celia Nagawa, Decided on September 11th 2024. Page 1-13.

[93] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 126 (2) (e): The Civil Procedure Act, 1929. Cap. 282. (Uganda). Section 98.

[94] The Children Act, 1997. Cap. 62. (Uganda).

[95] The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda). Section 14 (2) (a) and 37.