The High Court has rejected the request of Agnes Nakalanzi to fly her 10-year-old son to Australia during school holidays following a bitter dispute over child custody with her former lover.
Nakalanzi separated from the father of her son, Abdulla Kizito, after they developed irreconcilable differences. She relocated to Australia.
In her ruling, Justice Celia Nagawa said that the child had lived in a stable home with his father, Kizito, for about seven years and that changing the arrangement would not be in the child’s best interests.
She instead allowed Nakalanzi supervised physical visits whenever she returns to Uganda and weekly video or telephone calls with the child.
The dispute started after Nakalanzi asked the court to grant her joint custody of her biological son, permission to stay with him whenever she was in Uganda, authority to travel with him to Australia during holidays, and an order directing police to trace and locate the child.
She argued that after separating from Kizito, she moved abroad and wanted to rebuild her relationship with the boy.
She told the court she was willing to pay all travel expenses so the child could spend a month with her every December and also stay with her whenever she visited Uganda. She maintained that joint custody would serve the child’s best interests.
Kizito told the court that he met Nakalanzi while they both worked for Cafe Javas. They later began living together and had a son.
According to Kizito, he lost his job because of problems arising from the relationship. He claimed that while he struggled to find new employment, Nakalanzi became involved with other men.
He further alleged that when the child was about two and a half years old, Nakalanzi telephoned him while he was at work and informed him that she was leaving Uganda.
Kizito said he pleaded with her to wait until he returned home because she was alone with the child, but she refused.
He claimed she left the child behind in the house with some of her belongings and instructed him to burn the belongings.
Kizito told the court that he then became both father and mother to the boy.
“I used to go to work with the child, who was a toddler by then, for a period of one year,” he told the court.
He also said Nakalanzi never returned to see the child or even ask about his welfare for several years.
Kizito informed the court that he married another woman, Sumayah Zawedde, in 2020 and that they now have two children together. He said he had secured stable employment with Dough Works Limited, built a home in Kalagi, Mukono, and enrolled the child at Kalagi Junior School, where he is in P5.
He argued that the child was settled, had siblings, and was living in a peaceful family environment.
He also accused Nakalanzi of trying to use the child as leverage after discovering that he had remarried.
According to him, she only resumed communication through WhatsApp in 2024 after spending about five years without contacting either him or the child.
He argued that she had no permanent residence in Uganda and that allowing her to take the child to Australia could disrupt his education and create a risk that he would not be returned.
Nakalanzi denied abandoning the child and instead accused Kizito of forcing her out of their home because he was involved with another woman.
She claimed Kizito refused to allow her to leave the child with her own mother in Ntinda despite having earlier agreed to that arrangement.
Nakalanzi stated that Kizito grabbed the crying child from her arms, hid him, and refused to let her leave with him.
She also denied neglecting the child, saying she paid school fees before leaving Uganda and continued trying to keep in touch, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nakalanzi explained that she moved abroad to improve her financial position so she could better provide for the child and eventually pursue access to him.
She also said she had maintained a home with her mother in Ntinda whenever she returned to Uganda and wanted to build a meaningful relationship with her son.
IHK loses Shs 82.6 million medical bills case against US firm
After reviewing the statements, Justice Nagawa said the central issue was not which parent had greater rights but what arrangement best served the child’s welfare.
She found that the child had lived continuously with Kizito for about seven years and that he had provided a stable and structured home.
“The minor is enrolled in school and is progressing in his education, and resides with his two siblings within a cohesive family setting,” she said.
Justice Nagawa said the court recognises the importance of stability, continuity, and emotional security in the upbringing of a child, and disrupting a settled environment without sufficient justification may be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
She noted that Nakalanzi had been physically absent from the child’s life for approximately seven years without returning to Uganda to visit him.
While acknowledging her explanation that she moved abroad to improve her finances, Justice Nagawa said the long absence had inevitably limited the development of a meaningful relationship between Nakalanzi and her son.
“In such circumstances, granting joint custody is most likely to introduce uncertainty and instability in the child’s life; disrupt the child’s current routine, schooling, and social environment; and create practical difficulties in decision-making affecting the child,” Justice Nagawa said.
She rejected Nakalanzi’s request to travel with the child to Australia, saying there was insufficient evidence about the child’s proposed living arrangements and support systems abroad.
Justice Nagwa said it would be challenging to enforce court orders once the child left Uganda, saying the possibility that he might not be returned had to be considered.
“Granting [Nakalanzi] permission to travel with and stay with the minor outside Uganda at this stage would not be in the best interest of the child,” she ruled.
Instead, she ordered that Kizito retain sole custody, care and control of the child while Nakalanzi was granted supervised physical access whenever she is in Uganda, twice each month during weekends in a neutral, child-friendly environment.
Justice Nagawa also allowed Nakalanzi at least one video or telephone call with the child every week.
