Justice Celia Nagawa of the Family Division of the High Court directed the registrar of the said Court with immediate effect to forward Dr Jones Yosia Kyazze’s divorce file to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to determine whether she should proceed with the bigamy charges against him or not.
The judge made the decision after on oath made by Kyazze a retired United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a minister of State for Heritage, Royal Tombs and Tourism in Buganda Kingdom government where he confirmed that he entered a second marriage when he is still in in an existing marriage with his first wife.
“The Court directs the Registrar to forward the court record to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of criminal prosecution of the Respondent for the offence of bigamy contrary to Section 142 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 128,” the judge directed
She explained that the second wife can also pursue private criminal proceedings against Dr Kyazze since the law provides that any person who has a living husband or wife and goes through another ceremony of marriage which is void by reason of it taking place during the life of the husband or wife, commits a felony and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of five years.
More Read
“If the Petitioner wishes to pursue criminal charges against the Respondent for bigamy, that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the criminal courts. However, the possible commission of a criminal offence by the Respondent does not transform a void marriage into a valid one,” the judge added
However, she dismissed the divorce petition filed by Judith Bakabulindi a United States based Ugandan who wanted Court to dissolve their matrimonial marriage and equally share the multibillion properties which include land comprised in Kyadondo Block 2737 Plot 1693, their matrimonial home comprised in Kyadondo on Block 301 Plots 942, 943 and 944 land at Munyonyo and be paid court costs
Through her lawyers led by Simon Peter Kiribwa, Bakabulindi told Court that their relationship with the retired tycoon started around 2011 and they cohabited periodically until 7th June, 2018 when they decided to conduct a customary marriage ceremony at her parent’s home at Kamuzinda, Masaka district.
However, after the customary ceremony, she started witnessing her husband’s narcissistic behaviour towards her when he kept insulting her in public.
“In June, 2022 while the Petitioner was away in the USA, the respondent threw all her belongings outside when all the neighbours were watching something that psychologically tortured her. After the incident, the Respondent called the
Petitioner’s relatives to go and pick up her belongings and further informed them that their relationship was over,” Court record read.
She told Court that during their marriage, she invested a lot of money and time in various properties they acquired which ought to be declared matrimonial property and distributed accordingly.
Kyazze through his lawyers led by Berna Nakyeyune told Court that there has been no marriage between him and the petitioner insisting that she was just a girlfriend to him even though she went to her parents and cerebrated their customary marriage.
He raised primary objection insisting that before the hearing of the matter kicks off, Court should first consider whether there was a marriage to dissolve or not explaining that he is officially married to Christine Kibuuka whom he married on 21st December, 1974 at St. Paul’s Cathedral, Namirembe.
The judge agreed with Kyazze because Bakabulinde failed to prove that the certificate of marriage brought as evidence in Court is fake adding that she entered a marriage with a person well knowing that he is already married basing on the testimony of the respondent who also told Court that he agreed to visit the petitioner’s parents’ home to help her get documents as a married woman to help her settle in United States as she wanted.
“The Petitioner has exhibited photographs showing what appears to be a traditional ceremony. A ceremony of some kind may have taken place on 7th June, 2018. The parties may have exchanged vows, there may have been witnesses, there may have been customary rites performed, and the Petitioner may genuinely believe that she entered into a valid marriage. However, the existence of a ceremony, no matter how elaborate or genuine, cannot overcome the clear prohibition in Section 11(e) of the Customary Marriages (Registration) Act,” the judge further stated.
