The High Court in Kabale has granted a divorce to a retired teacher who accused his wife of cruelty and desertion, ending a marriage that lasted more than three decades.
Justice Ssemogerere Karoli Lwanga, in a judgment delivered on October 6, 2026, dissolved the marriage between Ndayanabo Benon, the petitioner, and Enid Hilda Mpirirwe Kesiime, the respondent, after finding that Ndayanabo had proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The couple were married under the Christian rite at St Andrew’s Nyabarema Church of Uganda in Bukinda, now in Rukiga District, on September 18, 1993. The marriage produced six children, all of whom are now adults. Both parties are retired teachers, with Ndayanabo having risen to the position of head teacher during his career.
The divorce proceedings were filed under Divorce Cause No. 002 of 2025 before the High Court in Kabale. Ndayanabo told court that the couple stopped living together in 2019 and accused his wife of subjecting him to physical and emotional suffering, denying him conjugal rights and restricting his access to family property.
He also alleged that Kesiime denied him food and, on November 23, 2021, locked him out of their matrimonial home following a disagreement. According to his witness statement, he remained outside listening to the radio until about 8pm, when his wife locked the house and made it clear that he would not sleep there that night.
Ndayanabo subsequently reported a domestic violence case against his wife at Bukinda Police Station under SD Reference 06/26/11/2021. The judgment states that the matter had not been resolved by the time of the divorce proceedings.
Ndayanabo was represented by Patricia Kaheru of the Uganda Law Society Legal Aid Project, while Kesiime was unrepresented. Although she was served with the petition and summons for directions, she did not file a defence or written submissions.
The court relied on two affidavits of service sworn by Ngorarano Vianney, a process server attached to the High Court in Kabale, and proceeded with the matter ex-parte under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Justice Ssemogerere, however, stressed that an undefended divorce petition cannot simply be granted because the respondent has failed to participate in the proceedings. The petitioner must still establish the statutory grounds for divorce and satisfy court that there was no collusion or connivance between the parties.
The judge found that the parties had entered into a valid marriage after considering a copy of their marriage certificate issued by St Andrew’s Nyabarema Church of Uganda. The court held that the marriage was contracted under the Marriage Act and therefore fell within the protection of Ugandan law.
On cruelty, the court considered Ndayanabo’s allegations that Kesiime denied him food and conjugal rights and restricted his use of family property. The judge noted that cruelty must be sufficiently serious and must go beyond the ordinary disagreements and difficulties experienced in marriage.
The court rejected the suggestion that failure by a wife to cook or provide food, on its own, could amount to cruelty, warning that such an approach could reinforce gender stereotypes within marriage, particularly because both Ndayanabo and Kesiime had worked full-time as teachers.
The judge also held that denial of conjugal rights does not automatically amount to cruelty. However, after considering the circumstances and evidence presented by Ndayanabo, the court found that the failure of the parties to maintain conjugal relations had caused him mental torture.
The court also considered the incident in which Ndayanabo alleged that he was locked out of the matrimonial home. Justice Ssemogerere found that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ separation provided sufficient evidence to establish cruelty.
The petitioner also relied on desertion. He told court that the parties had lived separately and that after retiring in December 2023, he returned to the matrimonial home but later left because he feared for his safety following what he described as actions by his wife and children.
He subsequently rented accommodation in Rwakimuri Cell, Nyakabungo Ward, Muhanga Town Council, Rukiga District. The court found that the circumstances amounted to constructive desertion and that the statutory period of two years required under the Divorce Act had been satisfied.
The court therefore found both cruelty and desertion proved and granted the divorce petition.
However, the judge rejected the allegation of witchcraft because Ndayanabo had not provided specific evidence to support it. The court noted that although witchcraft related conduct may, in appropriate circumstances, amount to cruelty, such allegations must be properly particularised and supported by evidence.
The divorce case also involved a dispute over seven properties, including the matrimonial home. The six other properties were land with trees at Rwanyamutare Cell, land with a banana plantation at Rwanyamutare Cell, land near a swamp at Rwanyamutare Cell, land at Kiburasano in Rwanyamutare Cell, land at Oworuhanga in Rwanyamutare Cell and land at Habubare Ndeijo in Rwanyamutare Cell.
Ndayanabo’s lawyer asked court to divide the six properties equally between the parties or order their sale and sharing of the net proceeds. The court agreed and declared the six properties matrimonial property to be distributed equally between Ndayanabo and Kesiime.
The major dispute concerned the matrimonial home and land at Rwanyamutare Cell, Nyakabungo Ward, Muhanga Town Council. Ndayanabo argued that the property belonged exclusively to him because his late father, Karyabaruma Charles, had gifted it to him before his marriage to Kesiime.
Justice Ssemogerere rejected the claim that the property should automatically remain Ndayanabo’s individual property simply because it had been acquired before the marriage. The court held that property acquired before marriage can become matrimonial property where it is subsequently used as the family home.
The judge noted that the couple had lived on the property and raised their six children there. The court also considered evidence that both spouses had worked as teachers and contributed to the upbringing and welfare of their family.
Although Ndayanabo had risen to the position of head teacher and may have earned more than his wife, the judge said this did not justify declaring him the sole owner of the matrimonial home.
The court consequently awarded Ndayanabo 70 percent of the assessed value of the matrimonial home and awarded Kesiime 30 percent.
Since all six children of the marriage are adults, the court ordered that the matrimonial home be sold within 12 months after the decree nisi becomes absolute.
In its final orders, the High Court granted Ndayanabo a decree nisi dissolving his marriage to Kesiime. The decree is to become absolute six months from the date of its issue.
The court further ordered that the six properties acquired during the marriage be shared equally between the parties, while the matrimonial home will be divided on a 70 percent to 30 percent basis in favour of Ndayanabo.
Ndayanabo was also awarded the costs of the divorce proceedings.
The judgment was delivered in open court in Kabale on October 6, 2026, in the presence of Felix Bakanyabonera, who held brief for Patricia Kaheru. Both Ndayanabo and Kesiime were also present in court.
English 