The High Court Family Division has granted a divorce on grounds of cruelty, ending a 33-year Christian marriage. The court found that Hope Kyomugisha endured years of violence, humiliation, and forced expulsion from her home.
Justice Celia Nagawa delivered the judgment on Monday, February 2, 2026. She ruled that the marriage between Kyomugisha and Friday Herbert Mugisha had irretrievably broken down. The couple married on May 2, 1992, at St James Cathedral in Mbarara. They have four children together.
Kyomugisha told the court that her husband became violent soon after their wedding. He drank heavily and abused her both at home and in public. One severe incident occurred in May 2005 in Gabiro. Mugisha allegedly pushed her from a moving vehicle and beat her in a roadside trench. The attack damaged her kidney and led to multiple surgeries in Uganda, Kenya, and India.
The judge applied Section 4(1)(e) of the Divorce Act. This section allows divorce on grounds of cruelty when one spouse’s conduct harms the other’s physical or mental health. Justice Nagawa stated that cruelty must cause actual or feared injury to qualify.
Mugisha denied all allegations. He claimed his Christian faith forbids divorce and said Kyomugisha deserted the home. However, the court found her testimony consistent and detailed. She had lived separately for 14 years and filed a divorce petition as early as 2012. The judge noted that Mugisha offered only bare denials without clear explanations.
The court dismissed the adultery claim due to lack of evidence. It emphasized that such claims require near moral certainty. Still, the judge ruled that cruelty alone justified the divorce. She also found that Mugisha’s behavior amounted to constructive desertion. Under Ugandan law, this occurs when one spouse’s actions make cohabitation impossible, forcing the other to leave.
On property division, the court recognized both financial and non-financial contributions. Kyomugisha raised their children alone after separation and ran a family restaurant. The respondent admitted under cross-examination that no property was acquired before 1992. Therefore, most assets fell within the marriage period.
The judge awarded Kyomugisha two properties in Luzira: a residential house in Kirombe and a commercial-residential building in Kitintale. Mugisha kept the Mbuya residence, a Bugolobi flat, and a contested farm in Kazo District. The court left the farm undistributed due to unresolved ownership issues.
The court refused alimony. It found that Kyomugisha could support herself through her business and past efforts. Alimony in Uganda requires proof of dependency, which she did not show. Each party will bear their own legal costs. The judge acknowledged that both suffered during the long and painful marriage.
The marriage will end formally six months after the decree nisi, as required by Section 36 of the Divorce Act. This waiting period allows for possible reconciliation, though it seems unlikely here.
This case reinforces that divorce on grounds of cruelty offers real protection to abuse victims. It shows that courts prioritize safety over religious or cultural objections when evidence is clear. The ruling also affirms that homemaking and child-rearing count as valuable contributions in property division.
For others in similar situations, this judgment offers hope. Ugandan law can provide a path out of abusive marriages. Divorce on grounds of cruelty is more than a legal term—it is a tool for justice and dignity.
As awareness grows, such rulings help build a future where marriage means respect, not fear.
READ: Girls Top English in 2025 PLE Results as Overall Pass Rates Rise
