Mrs Uhiriwe filed for divorce, citing extramarital affairs by her ex-husband.

While the Family Division of the High Court in Kampala found the said marriage entered into on 16 December 2005 to be legal, Ms Uhiriwe’s plea to divide the main principal properties acquired and/or developed while together was not upheld.

The court reasoned that the said developments, which included a livestock farm, were registered in Mr Kagwa’s name.

In another judgment delivered on January 19, 2023, the Court ordered Mrs. Fortunate Kyarikunda to pay her ex-fiancé, Mr. Richard Tumwine, Shs.10 million in damages for breach of promise to marry him after completing her law degree at the Law Development Center (LDC).

Before handing down the verdict, the court heard that Mr Tumwine funded Ms Kyarikunda’s studies at LDC and stipulated that the two would eventually marry after her graduation. Ms Kyarikunda, however, later changed her mind.

The contrasting outcomes of the two aforementioned cases partly explain why Ms Sarah Opendi took leave from Parliament to draft the Marriage Bill, 2024.

The bill that the Tororo district woman representative tabled almost a month ago seeks to “reform, repeal and strengthen the legal framework governing marriage in Uganda”.

It also aimed “to provide for recognized marriages in Uganda, registration of marriage, marital rights and obligations, conversion from one form of marriage to another form of marriage, property rights, separation and dissolution of marriage, among others”.

Of the 106 clauses, 16 are devoted to remedying major illnesses that spouses commonly suffer before, during, and after marriage. For example, clause 49 provides for equal access to property.

“Spouses have the right to equal access to matrimonial property,” the bill reads in part, adding that “equal access includes the right to use, occupy, enjoy, enter into, and dispose of of assets, unless there is an agreement between the spouses to say otherwise.”

Clause 45 of the Bill defines the types of property that must be included in a matrimonial home. It also looks at household property as well as “core funding provided by a spouse to start a business”.

The bill also changes the state’s basic rules for assessing property. It therefore establishes two types of ownership.

First, “any other real or movable property acquired before or during the existence of the marriage, deemed to be matrimonial property by the express agreement of the parties to the marriage” and, second, “property which was individual property, but which the spouse has made a contribution to them, unless the property relates to the sale of family land.”

It doesn’t stop there. In addition, clause 54 emphasizes that “where a spouse gives property to the other spouse during the existence of a marriage, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property belongs to the receiving spouse.”

The same draft law stipulates in clause 55 that a debt obtained by one of the spouses is divided, thus becoming an obligation to be paid by both parties.

“Where during the existence of a marriage a debt arises for the necessaries of life for the immediate family; (a) with the consent of the other spouse, the debt becomes a family debt to be borne equally by both spouses; or (b) without the consent of the other spouse, the debt shall be borne by the spouse who contracted the debt, unless otherwise agreed by the spouses,” the bill reads in part.

Ms Opendi drafted clause 61 to protect children born to spouses who are legally married by using the property of those two people to determine the weight of the award to those children.

“The court, on the application of a man or a woman, shall presume a marriage under this Act for the purpose of determining the maintenance of children and the property rights of the parties to a relationship,” the bill states.

It immediately states that “for the avoidance of doubt, the relationship under this Part shall not be classified as a marriage under this Act”.

In doing so, the bill says: “The court, in determining the rights of a child under subsection (1), shall follow the principle of the best interests of the child under the Children Act.”

The same bill states that a court order should be obtained before performing the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test on any child.

“There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a child born during the existence of a marriage is the biological child of the parties to the marriage,” clause 44 of the bill states in part, adding that “a person shall not subject a child born during the marriage”. the existence of a marriage with the deoxyribonucleic DNA test without a court order.”

Severe penalties are prescribed against persons who knowingly violate or willfully join a matrimonial institution with bad motives.

For example, the bill states that “a person who falsely claims or states that he is married to a particular person commits an offense known as ‘marriage touting'” and “is liable, on conviction, to a fine of 10 million Shs or serve three-year imprisonment or even both.”

In the specific terms, “to stand in this part means to live together as husband and wife, to acquire or hold property in common, to have children together, and to take the surname of the man by the woman.”

In similar terms, the bill provides that “a person who knowingly undergoes a marriage ceremony, with another person in a subsisting monogamous marriage, commits an offence” which attracts a fine of 10 million lei or may be imprisoned for five years or even serve both sentences. .

The same punishment is suggested for anyone who prevents the consummation of marriage between two persons intending to marry.

Similarly, a fine of Shs10 million or a five-year jail term is prescribed for persons who impersonate others, for example by marrying in the name of their brothers or sisters, who may either be physically distant or from other reasons do not participate in the marriage.

“A person who, during the course of marriage, looks at another for the occasion, or marries under a false name or description with intent to defraud the other party to the marriage, commits an offence,” the bill reads in part.

Any “person who helps, encourages or performs a void marriage” risks paying a fine of 10 million lei or serving 10 years in prison or even both, while people who marry children will be sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Stakeholders within the Stand for Her Land in Uganda (S4HL) campaign in coordination with the Uganda Community Association for the Welfare of Women and Children (UCOBAC) largely approve of the provisions of the bill.

Ms Jordana Wamboga, the program officer at UCOBAC, said monitored that the bill will be instrumental in “dealing with many of the issues facing people at the grassroots as well as in urban areas, particularly property rights issues and also issues affecting children and marriage in general”.

“There have been so many cases of property being sold without the consent of the wife and in many cases men will tell you she is not my wife because their marriage is not well defined. So, through this bill, it takes into account the interests of the children, regardless of whether the marriage has been defined,” Ms Wamboga added.

As the bill awaits processing by Parliament, Ms. Wamboga disclosed that her organization together with like-minded counterparts are engaged in popularizing legislations available in the Succession Act and the Children Act that protect women and children.

Once passed, Ms Wamboga believes the legislation will “help us educate men to move from that mindset of looking at women as people who have come to snatch their property to people who are supportive and help them to be able to get ahead. their families in a positive direction.”