Automated Summary
Key Facts
Edward Tibahwerayo and Daisy Namuli were divorced in September 2016 but continued to live in the same house. Tibahwerayo applied for a protection order, claiming psychological abuse and harassment. The court found his statements contradictory and noted no evidence of violence, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Issues
- Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter, considering statutory provisions on domestic violence and the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether the application for a protection order should be granted, based on the applicant's claims of emotional and psychological abuse, the respondent's counter-claims, and the lack of concrete evidence for domestic violence.
Holdings
- The application for a protection order is dismissed due to the applicant's contradictory statements about his living arrangements and lack of evidence proving domestic violence. The court found no proof of the respondent's harmful conduct and noted the applicant's failure to demonstrate threat to his health, safety, or wellbeing as required by Section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act.
- The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the domestic violence application under Article 139 of the Constitution and Section 14 of the Judicature Act, despite statutory provisions typically vesting such matters in Magistrates Court. The court retains unlimited original jurisdiction to hear domestic violence cases even when the Domestic Violence Act specifies lower courts.
Remedies
- The court dismissed the application for a protection order and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
- The court directed the respondent to return to the Mbuya residence and the applicant to remain in Bugolobi until the appeal is finalized, for the peace of both parties.
Legal Principles
The court applied the burden of proof principle under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the respondent's conduct constituted domestic violence. The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence of harassment, threats, or harm to his health, safety, or wellbeing as required by law.
Cited Statute
- Constitution
- Domestic Violence Act 2010
- Judicature Act
- Children Act
Judge Name
Lady Justice Ketrah Kitarisibwa Katunguka
Passage Text
- However the exception to the above provisions is that High Court is vested with unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139 of the Constitution and S. 14 of the Judicature Act. This court thus has jurisdiction to entertain this application.
- I find the applicant's statements contradictory and hard to believe... For the peace of both parties I hereby direct that until the appeal is finally disposed the respondent shall return to Mbuya while the applicant stays at Bugolobi not because there is domestic violence but for the peace of both parties.