Ruling on a case in which one, Sheila Butsya Lubega, sued her former husband Percy Paul Lubega together with Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd, Justice David Wangutusi said that court had found that Lubega had mortgaged their home without the consent of his wife.
“The Defendants put the matrimonial home on the auction line when they took it as security to a loan the Plaintiff (Sheila) had not consented to. She saw herself homeless with children to look after. It must have caused a lot of mental anguish,” Wangutusi ruled.
He thus ruled that the property registered Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 9624 is matrimonial home.
“The 1 st Defendant (Lubega) is solely liable to pay the loan obtained March 2015. The Defendants to pay General damages of Shs10million and costs of the suit.”
Court was told that in 2010 Lubega and Sheila got married and became husband and wife.
He had bought a few pieces of land which included Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 9624 and Busiro Block 349 Plot 544. A house was constructed on Block 185 Plot 9624 and on completion, the couple occupied it and lived there as husband and wife.
Also read: Sheila Butsya Lubega v Percy Paul Lubega & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS-292-2016) [2018] UGCOMMC 16
It is worthwhile mentioning that before the house was built, Lubega had sought a loan and used the land as security. This was after seeking spousal consent from Sheila.
This loan was paid back according to bank documents presented in court.
But as fate would have it, the two were not destined to stay together for long and in 2014 they had misunderstandings which led to their separation.
In 2015 Lubega sought and obtained a fresh loan of Shs352,000,000. He used the same property as security. He did not seek spousal consent, reasoning that since Sheila and him were separated, her consent was not necessary.
However, Sheila argued that her leaving the house was through eviction by her husband. She maintained that the property was a matrimonial home and so any loan based on it as security without her spousal consent was illegal henceforth when Centenary Bank tried to recover her money based on the “mortgage”, she filed this suit.
