The Payment of Dowry Shortly Before a Church Wedding May Be Regarded as Preparatory to a Formal Marriage Rather Than Evidence of a Separate Customary Marriage, The High Court Rules

Waboga David
5 days ago
6 min read

Introduction

The celebration of African customary marriages is ordinarily marked by the payment of bride price (dowry), which serves as a central indicator of the existence and recognition of such a marriage under customary law.

The payment of bride price is generally understood to signify the formal union of families and the commencement of marital rights and obligations.

The High Court in the case of Florence Nyesigaomwe Ubriza v James Mugisha (Divorce Cause No. 41 of 2017) [2025] UGHCFD 154 (29 October 2025), however, the court clarified the legal significance of the timing and context in which bride price is paid, particularly where it occurs shortly before the celebration of a church wedding.

FACTS

Florence Nyesigaomwe Ubriza (Petitioner) and James Mugisha (Respondent) married on December 21, 1991, at Kinyasano Cathedral Church of Uganda in Rukungiri District.

The couple initially lived in Mombasa, Kenya, where the Respondent worked as a security officer. They then returned to Uganda in 1994, residing in Bugolobi Flat 9D1 until relocating to London, England, in 2000 (respondent) and 2001 (petitioner).

The marriage produced one daughter, Theresa Ayebare Mugisha, who was 21 years old and had graduated with her first degree at the time of judgment.

On June 24, 2019, the parties entered into a partial Consent Judgment, dissolving the marriage and granting custody of their daughter to the Petitioner, with the Respondent having unlimited access.

The sole remaining issue was distribution of matrimonial property.

Three properties were disputed:

Kigezi Ruzhumbura Block 10 Plot 55 (9.5 acres at Kasheshe, Buyanzha)
Flat 9D1 Bugolobi, Block 111 Plot 33-41 Luthuli Rise
Residential house in Nabweru

ISSUES

Whether there are any matrimonial properties
What remedies are available to the parties

SUBMISSIONS

Petitioner's Submissions (Counsel Edson Kaliba, AKN Advocates)

Kigezi Ruzhumbura Property:

Though acquired before church marriage and registered solely in the Respondent's name, it was obtained during the subsistence of customary marriage/cohabitation
Intended as farm land for the couple's sustenance
Payment of bride price constitutes proof of customary marriage
Cited: Ambayo Joseph Waigo v. Aserua Jackline, Namukasa Joweria v. Kakondere Livingstone

Bugolobi Flat:

Petitioner was instrumental in acquiring goodwill
UGX 2,500,000 for goodwill came from the sale of the Petitioner's container
Property acquired during marriage subsistence
Served as the couple's home until the UK relocation

Nabweru House:

Solely purchased by Petitioner for their daughter, Theresa
Respondent's claimed UGX 4,000,000 contribution was riddled with contradictions
Cited Tinkomalirwe v. Uganda on major contradictions

Sought 50% share in all properties deemed matrimonial, plus alimony, damages, and costs.

Respondent's Submissions (via Counsel Gerald Niwagira):

Kigezi Land:

Purchased solely by Respondent on March 17, 1991 (pre-marriage) with personal savings and father's contribution; no customary marriage or cohabitation. Relied on Kyobulungi Edidah v. Guma Gordon (Civil Suit No. 0846 of 2020) to argue no pleading or proof of customary marriage; dowry was preparatory for a church wedding.

Bugolobi Flat:

Acquired as owner post-separation via loans (Housing Finance and Barclays Bank); the couple lived there as tenants only until 2001. No Petitioner contribution to ownership.

Nabweru House: a Family property; Respondent contributed UGX 4,000,000 to the development; identified by his brother; used as holiday home and furnished jointly. Contradictions in the evidence were minor.

Daughter (British citizen) cannot own freehold land per Article 237 of the Constitution and Section 40 of the Land Act; any transfer to her requires joint parental decision.

Sought declaration of Kigezi land as personal property, equal division of other properties, and costs.

In rejoinder, the Petitioner reiterated prior arguments, emphasizing contributions and intent.

Legal Representation

Petitioner: Represented by Counsel Edson Kaliba of AKN Advocates.
Respondent: Represented by Counsel Gerald Niwagira of M/S Niwagira, Tusiime Advocates.

Court's Findings

The court applied principles from key precedents, including Julius Rwabinumi v. Hope Bahimbisomwe (SCCA No. 0010 of 2009), Muwanga v. Kintu (High Court Divorce Appeal No. 135 of 1997), Komore v. Komore [2000] 1 EA 81, and Ayiko Mawa Solomon v. Lekuru Annet Ayiko (High Court Divorce Cause No. 0001 of 2015).

Matrimonial property is that which parties "choose to call home" and to which both contribute (directly/monetarily or indirectly/non-monetarily). Individual property rights under Article 26(1) of the 1995 Constitution are preserved unless explicitly transferred.

Justice Nagawa reaffirmed that;

"Matrimonial property is understood differently by different people. There is always property which the couple choose to call home. There may be property which may be acquired separately by each spouse before or after marriage. Then there is property which a husband may hold in trust for the clan. Each of these should in my view be considered differently. The property to which each spouse should be entitled is that property which the parties choose to call home and which they jointly contribute..." (Citing Bbosa J in Muwanga v. Kintu).

"In my view, the Constitution of Uganda (1995), while recognizing the right to equality of men and women in marriage and at its dissolution, also reserved the constitutional right of individuals, be they married or not, to own property either individually or in association with others under Article 26 (1) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995). This means that even in the context of marriage, the right to own property individually is preserved by our Constitution..." (Per Kisaakye JSC in Rwabinumi).

"Where property is acquired during the course of coverture and is registered in the joint names of both spouses the Court in normal circumstances must take it that such property being a family asset is acquired in equal shares." (Citing Komore v. Komore).

"Where the disputed property is not so registered in the joint names of the spouses but is registered in the name of one spouse, the beneficial share of each spouse would ultimately depend on their proven respective proportions of financial contribution either direct or indirect towards the acquisition of the property." (From Ayiko Mawa Solomon).

The court evaluated each property:

Kigezi Land: Acquired pre-marriage (March 17, 1991) solely by Respondent; no Petitioner contribution or cohabitation/customary marriage proven. Not used as family property; intended for the Respondent's father.

"It is therefore the conclusion of this Court that property comprised in Kigezi Ruzhumbura Block 10 Plot 55, land at Kasheshe Buyanzha registered in the name of James Mugisha, is not matrimonial property but exclusively owned by James Mugisha (the Respondent)."

Bugolobi Flat: Acquired goodwill during marriage (1994) with Petitioner's non-monetary contribution (identifying and initiating purchase); served as family home until 2001. Respondent's later loan-funded ownership does not negate the joint interest.

"It is my finding that Flat 9D1 Bugolobi... is matrimonial property because, though registered in the sole name of the Respondent, the Respondent acquired registrable interest by virtue of holding the goodwill for the same to which the Petitioner made a non-monetary contribution, and the parties called it home."

Nabweru House: Acquired during marriage (2005); Petitioner's primary financial contribution, but Respondent's indirect/non-monetary role (identification via brother, supervision). Used as a family holiday home and occupied by the Respondent's relatives. Sale agreement naming daughter not dispositive.

"It is therefore, the conclusion of this Court that the Residential house in Nabweru is matrimonial property and available for distribution and or sharing."

Holding

The petition and cross-petition partly succeeded. The court declared:

Kigezi Land: Not matrimonial; exclusively owned by Respondent.
Bugolobi Flat: Matrimonial; Respondent entitled to 60%, Petitioner to 40%. To be valued (cost on Respondent); Respondent to pay Petitioner 40% within one year, or sell and share proceeds.
Nabweru House: Matrimonial; Petitioner entitled to 70%, Respondent to 30%. To be valued (cost on Petitioner); Petitioner to pay Respondent 30% within one year, or sell and share proceeds. Alternatively, parties may facilitate a lease to a daughter.
Other reliefs (dissolution, custody): Already resolved by consent.
Costs: Each party bears its own costs.

Key Takeaways

Matrimonial Property Definition
Emphasizes "joint contribution" and "calling it home"; non-monetary efforts (e.g., identification, supervision) can establish interest, but must be proven.
Pre-Marital Assets
Strictly individual unless transferred or contributed to post-marriage; customary marriage/cohabitation claims require pleading and evidence.
Equitable Division
Not automatically equal; based on proportional contributions (e.g., 60/40 or 70/30 splits here).
Constitutional Balance
Affirms individual ownership rights (Art. 26) alongside marital equality (Art. 31).
Practical Implications
Parties should document contributions and intent (e.g., joint registration) to avoid disputes. For non-citizen children, land ownership is limited to leases.
Broader Impact
Reinforces evolving Ugandan jurisprudence on gender-neutral property division, potentially influencing future cases involving diaspora couples or informal contributions.