If the parties has matrimonial property incase yes, if the petitioner are eligible to a portion regarding matrimonial property?
A try was created so you’re able to define the expression ‘matrimonial property’ by Lady Justice Esther Kisakye in the case of Rwabinumi Vs. Bahimbisomwe Civil Focus No. ten of 2009 in which she quoted which have approval your situation from Muwanga Versus.
“matrimonial property is understood differently because of the each person. There’s always property which the couples made a decision to phone call domestic. There is certainly assets that is certainly gotten independently by for each and every lover ahead of otherwise immediately after matrimony. Then there’s possessions and this a husband will get hold in believe on clan. Each of these will be in my view be considered in a different way. The property to which per mate will be entitled is that possessions and this activities decided to phone call home and you can which they as one subscribe to”.
Depending on the proof on the record, new petitioner affirmed one on the woman ire Trade Centre collaborating once the a family powering an entire profit shopping store and soon after as one purchased residential property out-of a one Hajji Badru Sande which had a home inside it. New contract from revenue are adduced when you look at the facts since EXHP1. She after that reported that once they transferred to Rukungiri, they ordered a great deal more pieces of belongings including, house of a one John Kabareebe, (Exhibit P2), various other ordered of the respondent from John Kabareebe, (Exhibit P3) but other as you bought off F. Mugondo in which it situated new matrimonial home(pick Display P4). She as well as demonstrated images of the property since EXHP20 and you may invoices of some of the items she sold in the house as EXHP21 (a), (b) and you may (c). She on top of that adduced EXHP5 since a contract getting belongings bought by respondent of Mugume Polly on what he has a good banana plantation, EXHP6 because land bought together away from W. Rushakama that can possess a banana plantation and you may EXHP7 once the home bought because of the respondent out-of Nshijja .G in which it expanded nice potatoes.
The newest petitioner plus affirmed that the couple later on transferred to Kampala and you can during their remain together with her started dealing when you look at the promoting cars regarding whose proceeds they bought a cab which they plus offered away from and soon after come running a shop. Then they ordered six pieces of homes a couple of that have property plus the others plantations. That EXHP10 are a binding agreement for homes bought by petitioner regarding a single Byangwanye Obed, yet EXHP11 is for belongings ordered jointly throughout the college students away from this new later Levi Butumanya, EXHP12 since the homes purchased jointly regarding Kalumba Faisal which has domestic premise from the Nateete and you may EXHP13 as the proof of land on Kiwatule as you bought regarding Kalyegira Adone and you may that has land and you may properties.
The newest petitioner subsequent adduced proof a binding agreement (EXHP14) in which the fresh respondent handed over a shop for the Ntinda so you’re able to the lady and then have adduced proof invoices towards book she paid for the store since EXHP15 (a) and you can (b). She testified that when the fresh respondent was launched away from jail, the guy bankrupt the store, piled much of merchandize on it on to a trailer and you will took them to Rwashamire in which the http://datingranking.net/cs/bicupid-recenze/ guy arranged other shop, however, later went the goods so you can Rukungiri. She stated that event just like the thieves at the Kiira path Police station vide SD Ref./2010.
Resta aggiornato su tutte le novità di Monethica™
Monethica Srl Startup Innovativa
Via Giovanni Branca 15, 00153, Roma
P. IVA 16261731000
Numero CCIA REA-RM 1645148 – Capitale sociale 10.000,00 i.v.