SV: {UAH} JIM Muwanga: SHOCK RULING BY UK SUPREME COURT

JIM,

Which Ganda one? For which Ganda society or better still, which Ganda culture?

I believe it is your responsibility as an enlightened Muganda the Ganda customs are adjusted and answering to the call of prevalent Baganda reality (culture).

Excommunicated medieval customs answering to the call

of those despotic feudal era may not always be responsive to present day Baganda reality.

I attended a Baganda wedding some time back with Baganda from all over Europe and America. Oh gosh, what beauties!!! It was indeed a sight and I keept on thinking: " they'll never go back to emrace Jimmy

ideals and notion of "TRUE BAGANDA CULTURE".

Those beauties, ehe, they sure were on top of the world. 

And I know the frequently go to Uganda because I talked to many. 

Hence, my believe that even your notion of the Ganda

ones needs constant adjusments to embrace the new Baganda as well.

As for Okello's shock, the solutionis: DON'T GET MARRIED!!!!!!!!!!!

Noc'l

 

"WE FORM THE CULTURE THAT FORMS US"….noc'la gaumoy.

Den torsdag, 12 mars 2015 14:17 skrev jim muwanga <muwangajim@gmail.com>:

Thats because she brought up the kids or kid on her own.

In normal Ganda Family our norm is that the man or his side brings up the children.

However. the guy should get a good lawyer.

I do not like copying Zungus or their norms / laws for I have mine. i.e. Ganda ones.  neither will i enforce / or impose the Ganda ones on Zungus or other people.

My colleague has a sister in London. the husband was unemployed. the sister owned everything in the home. the man got agrant and would just sit at home and eat. When they divorced the court gave the husban half of the wifes property including the house. The house was sold. My colleagues sister went back to mothers place because she had no where to stay and she cannot get a house for the half ( amount she got.

Crazy world............

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:07 PM, George Okello <opallog@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim Muwanga? WBK

Here is another shocker for you delivered yesterday by the UK Supreme
Court. The court has effectively torn into pieces what we usually
understood divorce to mean because an ex-wife can now have a claim
against the ex-husband permanently, depending on his financial
circumstances, and wether or not they are divorced.

In this case, the couple married in 1981, nad had a child, but the
marriage broke down in 1984, eventually formally ending in legal
diivorce in 1992. They went their seperate ways. Both were New Age
Travellers, the man living in an old ambulance and travelling around
the UK. The wife went on to live with another man, having two more
children.

The husband always had a brilliant idea of producing clean
electricity, and starting first with his ambulance, he then developed
his idea into a viable electricity producer and his company is now
worth £107 million.  The wife in the meantime was living in poverty
somewhere in Wales, but when she heard about the husband's success,
she decided to make a financial claim against him, almost 31 years
after they had divorced. The Spreme Court has now decided she can go
ahead with her claim in the Family Courts, she wants £1.9 million and
almost £2 million legal costs paid by the husband. The court accepts
that the wife contributed nothing to the husband's success, but if you
read the judgement below, still decided she has a claim on the basis
of having brought up the child on her own.

Jim Muwanga, divorce law has now been changed beyond recognition by
this judgement. When I first started practising law, I knew that I
could have a "Clean Break Settlement" in court, meaning that whatever
divorce settlement is decided by the court is  the final word on the
matter. The wife can nolonger come back asking for more. This is no
longer the case. if your financial situation improves after divorce,
the wife is still entitled to come back to court to ask for more.

Basically, what this new shocker of a court ruling is saying that
marriage is for life, whether you divorce or not. People like myself
who divorced 15 years ago are nolonger safe nor protected. If I came
to South Africa and set up a business  which grows up to make us
multi-millionaries, according to this judgement, my wife can still go
back to court to ask for more.

I dont know what the impact of this judgement is going to have on the
institution of marriage. Will people still enter into legal marriges
if by doing so, they know they will have to be financialy responsible
for their wives for the whole of their lives?

You better warn Haji Kigongo, because the law as it stands today, is
againdst him. He will have to pay a huge sum  in divorce settlement to
his his ex-wife Olive. Here in this case, the marriage lasted less
than 3 years, the wife never contributed anything to the husband's
wealth but is claiming £1.9 million plus costs. In Kigingo's case, the
marriage lasted 30 years, she contributed to the creation of the
family wealth, and there is every reason the court will decide she is
entitled to a half of the assets and wealth created during the
marriage.


George Okello


Supreme Court reinstates wife's financial claim against green energy boss
March 11, 2015 5 comments


The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has reinstated a financial
claim made by the ex-wife of a wealthy green energy pioneer.

In Wyatt v Vince, Dale Vince married Kathleen Wyatt in December 1981
and the couple went on to have a son together. Wyatt also had a
daughter by a previous relationship. They lived a modest lifestyle and
had little money and the relationship did not last. They separated in
1984, but did not complete their subsequent divorce until 1992.

Mr Vince become a New Age traveller before establishing Ecotricity, a
Gloucestershire-based supplier of green energy produced by wind
turbines. The company became highly successful and Mr Vince is now a
wealthy man. Meanwhile, Ms Wyatt went on to have two further children,
but she still has still has little money, alternating between periods
of poorly paid work and a reliance on benefits.

She launched legal proceedings against her ex-husband in 2011, seeking
a lump sum payment as well as assistance with her legal costs. He,
meanwhile, applied to have her claim 'struck out' (dismissed by the
court) under the Family Procedure Rules 2010. These allow cases to be
struck out if there are "no reasonable grounds" for pursuing them or
if they are deemed to be an "abuse of the court's process".

A judge ruled against Mr Vince in December 2012, dismissing his
application to have the case struck out and ordering him to make
payments to Ms Wyatt's solicitors to cover her legal costs. He
appealed, and the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Now
retired Lord Justice of Appeal Lord Justice Thorpe came out strongly
in favour of Mr Vince, stating that he was "not her insurer against
life's eventualities".

Requring Mr Vince to fund his former wife's claim against him was,
added his Lordship, "not an outcome which the court can contemplate
with equanimity, however wealthy the husband may be."

She was ordered to repay the funds she had received from the
Ecotricity owner. Ms Wyatt's subsequent appeal went to the Supreme
Court, which has now reversed the decision a second time.

In a unanimous ruling, Lord Wilson and his colleagues disagreed with
the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the Family Procedure Rules.
These do not, he declared, provide the courts with a power to make
'summary judgement ' on financial claims made by a spouse or former
spouse – i.e. without proceeding to a trial. In addition, the
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 imposes a duty to fully consider the
circumstances of a particular case, including "the contributions which
each of the parties has made … to the welfare of the family, including
any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family."

Consequently, Ms Wyatt's claim was not an "abuse of process" and the
Court of Appeal judgement had been mistaken in law. The case must
therefore be sent back to the Family Division of the High Court, Lord
Wilson ruled, and Mr Vince must resume payment of his ex-wife's legal
costs.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court judgement is robust in its assessment
of the Ms Wyatt's chances of ultimate success, stating:

"The wife's application faces formidable difficulties. (a) The marital
cohabitation subsisted for scarcely more than two years. (b) It broke
down 31 years ago. (c) The standard of living enjoyed by the parties
prior to the breakdown could not have been lower. (d) The husband did
not begin to create his current wealth until 13 years after the
breakdown. (e) The wife has made no contribution, direct or indirect,
to its creation."

Ms Wyatt could not provide a full explanation for much of the delay in
pressing her case, His Lordship noted, and she would most likely only
be entitled to a "modest" award in the eventual High Court hearing.

The Judgement also took time to describe Mr Vince as "clearly a
remarkable man" who had "achieved brilliant success".

Read the Supreme Court judgement here.

Photo of Ecotricity home town Stroud by Air1jwilkins1212 via Wikipedia
under a Creative Commons licence

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author
Was This Post Valuable?
Share This Post

Share on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services0Get Free Family Law Updates

    March 11, 2015

Categories: Finances and Divorce

Tags: Ecotricty, finances and divorce, Gloucestershire, Stroud,
Supreme Court, Vince v Wyatt

5 comments
Luke - March 11, 2015 at 4:20pmReport/Reply I am glad that this
ludicrous court decision is getting a high level of media coverage,
having recently engaged in conversation with young men one of them
brought up the subject of marriage and I was surprised how generally
uninformed they were of the risks that they would be taking.
The guy that brought it up was not keen on marriage but I was shocked
at how ignorant they are of the sort of decisions that men are often
handed out in divorce court.
.
It seems I was previously incorrect in saying men getting married
today have only themselves to blame as they are aware of how bad
divorce is likely to be for them as men – lots of them STILL really
don't know…

Andrew - March 11, 2015 at 6:26pmReport/Reply This case is BAD news,
GOOD news, BAD news, and GOOD news.

The BAD news is that she won; but in the absence of a limitation
clause in the Matrimonial Causes Act I fear that that was inevitable.

The GOOD news is that her greedy dream of £9m has been firmly squashed
and she may get nothing at all.

The BAD news is that she is still encouraged to hope for a home for
herself and her almost adult children by another man; they are not her
ex-husband's responsibility.

The GOOD news is that her entrepreneurial ex-husband's pension is
safe; there was no pension sharing when they got divorced.

What is obvious is that a limitation should be introduced – I suggest
one year from the nisi. After that people should be expected and
allowed to get on with their lives without looking over their
shoulders.

Nordic - March 11, 2015 at 9:34pmReport/Reply The only good news I can
find in this judgement is the amount of negative publicity it has
received, much of which portraits the Supreme Court judges as having
taken leave of their senses. They richly deserve that.
.
It's irrelevant that she was told her initial claim was over the top.
The precedent now established will be used to reopen decade old
divorces up and down this country. Middle class families will waste
their limited resources in futile fights. Old family conflicts will be
reignited. Children will watch their mums and dads yet again embroiled
in horrible arguments.
.
There is nothing good about this judgement. It is an affront to all
modern men and women and irresponsible to the point of being reckless.
Nordic - March 11, 2015 at 6:29pmReport/Reply I gues one might simply
view this judgement the final decent into an abyss of judicial
madness. As a sign that our Supreme Court has lost its few remaining
marbles along with any connection with the real world.
.
But maybe that's unfair. Maybe there is some logic to this judgement
after all.It will spur on tons of new litigation and create new
sources of acrimony and parental conflict in what is already the most
acrimonous family justice system anywhere in Europe. While parents and
their children will suffer, the legal industry will benefit hugely and
maybe this was the true objective of the court. To look after the
financial well being of the family law industry. In that case, this
judgement makes perfect sense.
.
PS: To those who want to leave Europe to prevent foreign judges from
interfering in our internal issues, are you really sure you would
prefer being at the mercy of an English Supreme Court judge?

Luke - March 11, 2015 at 11:54pmReport/Reply "To those who want to
leave Europe to prevent foreign judges from interfering in our
internal issues, are you really sure you would prefer being at the
mercy of an English Supreme Court judge?"
================================================
.
Yes, it's an argument FOR independence – because I think if the UK
ever became independent the incoming government would implement a
massive overhaul of the system, I think that would be almost
inevitable.
.
Of course the reality is that in the foreseeable future it is highly
unlikely that either of these events will come to pass.

Leave a comment

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to:  ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.