«

»

Dub
12

The main point of contention in the first reason is that the magistrate granted a divorce where none was pleaded. According to counsel for the complainant, she ignored the issues agreed at the futures conference and considered them „smuggled“ in the respondent`s counsel`s statements. As a result, they misunderstood a prayer for a separation decree for a dismissal that led to a miscarriage of justice. The magistrate resolved this issue by terminating the marriage. In cases where both parties would have demonstrated significantly in their submissions and evidence that they only wanted a separation of bodies, the Tribunal should have supported the parties in order for the respondent to amend its briefs to seek divorce and not judicial separation. The two sides agreed that they jointly owned land at Nasuti (plot 762 Block 190) and another in Nakabago (Plot 1203 Block 107 Kyaggwe Central) East Buganda. In its decision of Muwanga V Kintu (1997), Bbosa J stated that the marital property to which any spouse should be entitled is the property that the parties have designated as their homeland and to which they contribute jointly. In the recent decision of Julius Rwabinumi V Hope Bahimbisomwe Civil Appeal No.30 of 2007, it was established that if a spouse makes a substantial contribution to a property, it is considered marital property. The contribution can be direct, monetary or indirect and not monetary. PW1, according to the defendant in his testimony on page 22 of the minutes: „I have not left my marriage, but I want a judicial separation……. I am not against biblical and Catholic religious beliefs, but I seek to relieve torture and offensive messages. On page 20 of the minutes, she was concrete: „My prayer before this court is the judicial separation according to my plea.“ Under Section 4 of the Act (hereafter referred to as „law“), a successful petition will merit the total dissolution of the marriage and, therefore, the total separation of marital relationships and obligations between spouses. Whereas in section 14, only a judicial separation can be obtained. Unfortunately, there was no clear definition of judicial separation in the legislation.

Therefore, the use of other authorities would be helpful. According to Blackes Law Dictionary, judicial separation is „…… an agreement under which a man and a woman live apart while remaining married, either by mutual agreement (by written agreement) or by judicial decree.“ I believe that the total dissolution of the marriage was followed by a broad legal order with respect to the state of the parties as a couple, matrimonial property and legal custody of their children. This would be a serious miscarriage of justice, particularly if, as I will demonstrate, the reasons for divorce or separation are not proven at the required level. The above agreement covered until December 17, 2010, when the petitioner motiond an application to cancel and cancel the separation agreement between the parties. The respondent made a sworn statement, including the argument that the application was not legally defensible and that the separation agreement reached by the parties acted as a consent decision and therefore could not be set aside. It is clear that both parties have requested, through their briefs, a judicial separation and not a complete termination of their marriage. However, the magistrate appeared to have been influenced by the respondent`s final statements to dissolve the marriage entirely, as the parties cannot live together under one roof. She then accepted the questions in their entirety.

The qualified judge was wrong in misreprescing judicial separation as a divorce.