High Court at Luwero Upholds Jurisdiction in Divorce Petitions Involving High-Value Matrimonial Assets but Mandates Territorial Transfer
- Waboga David
- Oct 1
- 4 min read
Introduction
In civil procedure, one of the foundational questions before any court is that of jurisdiction. Before the merits of a case can be considered, a court must be satisfied that it possesses the requisite competence to entertain the matter. Jurisdiction is generally examined on three fronts; subject-matter jurisdiction (whether the court can hear that type of case), pecuniary jurisdiction (whether the monetary value or property in dispute falls within its competence), and territorial jurisdiction (whether the dispute has been filed in the proper geographical forum). A claim filed in a court without jurisdiction, however strong on the merits, is fatally defective and amounts to a nullity.
In the present case, an unusual but significant question arose; Can the High Court entertain a divorce petition where it undoubtedly has jurisdiction under the Constitution, yet the matter has been filed in the wrong territorial circuit? The High Court at Luwero was invited to determine this preliminary objection, raised by the Respondent, on the basis that the matrimonial home and residence of the Respondent were in Mbarara District, outside the territorial limits of the Luwero circuit.
In a rare and instructive ruling, the Court emphasized that while the High Court enjoys unlimited jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, such jurisdiction is subject to statutory guidance on territorial propriety. The Court thus affirmed that it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter in principle but not the territorial jurisdiction to entertain it at Luwero. To safeguard both the validity of the proceedings and the proper administration of justice, the petition was accordingly transferred to the High Court at Mbarara.
Facts
The Petitioner, Francis Mheekyera Takirwa, instituted divorce proceedings against the Respondent, Rutereza Christine, in the High Court at Luwero, seeking dissolution of their marriage.
The parties, both Africans, had established their matrimonial home in Bwizibwera, Rutooma, Bugarama Cell, Mbarara District, where the Respondent continues to reside. The Petitioner resides in Bombo Barracks, within Luwero's jurisdiction.
In response, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection, challenging the Court's jurisdiction on both substantive (due to the parties' status as Africans) and territorial grounds (Respondent's residence in Mbarara).
The Petitioner countered that the High Court's unlimited jurisdiction applies, citing the alleged value of matrimonial property exceeding UGX 50,000,000 as an exceptional circumstance.
Issues
Whether the High Court has substantive jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition where both parties are Africans, in light of Section 3 of the Divorce Act and Article 139(1) of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court at Luwero has territorial jurisdiction, given the Respondent's residence in Mbarara District and the location of the matrimonial home.
Legal Representation
Petitioner was represented by Wobusobozi Tito Isaac (holding brief for Samuel Taremwa).
Respondent was represented by Sylvia Namawejje Ebitu.
Submissions
Respondent's Submissions
Counsel argued that jurisdiction is statutory and proceedings without it are a nullity (Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351). Under Section 15(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, the suit should be instituted where the defendant resides or the cause of action arises, Mbarara in this case, due to convenience and cost considerations.
On substantive jurisdiction, Section 3(1) of the Divorce Act vests authority in Magistrates Grade I or Chief Magistrates for African parties, reserving the High Court for others (Section 3(2)). Citing Okutho v Angom (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022) and Fredrick Kato v Ann Njoki (Divorce Cause No. 10 of 2007),
Counsel urged rational case distribution to avoid overburdening the High Court and promote access to justice. Prayer: Dismiss the petition with costs and direct filing in Mbarara's appropriate court.
Petitioner's Submissions
Counsel contended that the Respondent's objection hinges on her residence in the Petitioner's Mbarara house, but the Petitioner resides in Bombo Barracks (Luwero jurisdiction).
That Article 139(1) grants the High Court unlimited original jurisdiction. While acknowledging Section 3 of the Divorce Act, Counsel invoked Fredrick Kato v Ann Njoki to argue for High Court handling where matrimonial assets exceed UGX 50,000,000 (the pecuniary limit for magistrates), as the Respondent's residence in the property is contestable post-divorce.
The Petitioner prayed for the preliminary objection to be dismissed with costs.
Court's Findings
The Court defined jurisdiction as the authority to decide matters, derived from the Constitution or statute, and acting ultra vires renders proceedings illegal (Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council [2008] 2 EA 300; Uganda v Wadri & 3 Ors, Criminal Revision No. 0002 of 2018; Wetaka Francis v Attorney General, Civil Suit No. 30 of 2020).
On substantive jurisdiction
Article 139(1) vests unlimited original jurisdiction in the High Court. Section 3(1) of the Divorce Act directs African-party divorces to magistrates, but this must yield to constitutional supremacy (Articles 2 and 21) and equality principles.
Endorsing Fredrick Kato v Ann Njoki, the Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, cases should commence in the lowest competent court for accessibility and cost-efficiency. However, where matrimonial assets exceed UGX 50,000,000, the High Court may entertain the matter directly.
Here, the Petitioner's unverified claim of property value over this threshold lacked evidence, precluding assumptions. Transferring prematurely risked ping-ponging between courts, delaying justice ("justice delayed is justice denied"). Thus, invoking unlimited jurisdiction, the High Court retained the matter to ensure efficiency, discretion under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act notwithstanding.
On territorial jurisdiction
Section 15(a) mandates suits where the defendant resides (focusing solely on the respondent, not petitioner; Nakawesi v Pride Microfinance Limited (MDI), Civil Suit 72 of 2021).
The Respondent's uncontroverted residence in Mbarara places the matter under the High Court at Mbarara per the Judicature (Designation of High Court Circuits) Instrument, 2023.
Filing in Luwero contravenes this, risking inconvenience. However, Uganda has a unitary High Court (Cyprian Obbo v Alafari Onyango & Ors, HCCA No. 130/2012), so the filing defect does not nullify the petition.
Transfer to Mbarara upholds territorial propriety without invalidating proceedings.
Holding
The preliminary objection was upheld on territorial grounds. The High Court at Luwero lacks geographical jurisdiction; the matter is transferred to the High Court of Uganda at Mbarara with immediate effect.
Costs are in the cause.
Implications for Practice
Litigants in divorce cases involving African parties should prioritize magistrates' courts unless high-value assets (evidenced, not alleged) justify a High Court filing to invoke exceptional jurisdiction.
Territorial filings must align with the respondent's residence to avoid transfers, emphasizing early jurisdictional checks.
This ruling reinforces constitutional supremacy over outdated statutes like the Divorce Act, pending reforms, while balancing access to justice.
Read the full case
.jpg)
