Uganda’s divorce law has long been a contested arena for gender equality and personal freedom. First enacted in 1904, the Divorce Act required proof of fault—adultery, cruelty, desertion, or similar grounds—before a marriage could legally be dissolved.
This framework was historically discriminatory against women until the landmark FIDA Uganda petition (2003/2004), when the Constitutional Court struck down provisions allowing husbands to divorce solely on grounds of adultery while requiring wives to prove adultery plus an additional fault.
That ruling affirmed equality between men and women and laid the foundation for ongoing reforms.
Yet, even with these revisions, divorce in Uganda remained fault-based, unlike in countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, China, and the Philippines, where no-fault divorce allows dissolution without proving wrongdoing.
On August 18, 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling in Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2020.
Five prominent city lawyers—Dr. Busingye Kabumba, Nicholas Opiyo, Innocent Ngobi Ndiko, Stella Nakagiri, and Isaac Ssali Mugerwa, representing Bule Bell Advocates—challenged key provisions of the Divorce Act.
The petitioners argued that requiring proof of fault is outdated and unconstitutional, violating Articles 20 and 21 (equality before the law), 24 (right to dignity), 27 (right to privacy), and 31 (equal rights in marriage and divorce).
They urged the Court to adopt a no-fault system, where courts could issue divorce decrees once a marriage has irretrievably broken down, without requiring spouses to prove adultery, cruelty, or desertion.
Attorney General William Byaruhanga, absent from court due to another case, had argued that removing the fault requirement could undermine the sanctity of marriage, encourage frivolous divorces, and conflict with Uganda’s moral and religious values in a conservative society.
The Court dismissed most of the petition, affirming that Uganda’s divorce law will remain fault-based. The request to introduce no-fault divorce did not succeed.
However, the Court struck down one key provision of the old Act that allowed only wives to apply for judicial separation.
The judges ruled it gender-discriminatory, granting both men and women the legal right to seek judicial separation for the first time in over a century.
The ruling leaves mixed outcomes. Ordinary Ugandans trapped in unhappy marriages without provable fault still face barriers to divorce.
Gender equality advocates hail the equalization of judicial separation rights, while religious leaders are likely to welcome the Court’s refusal to adopt no-fault divorce.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between tradition, religion, and evolving human rights in Uganda.
Since the FIDA petition in 2003, courts have made progress, but the refusal to embrace no-fault divorce places Uganda behind global trends, where personal autonomy and privacy in marriage are increasingly prioritized.
Despite its limitations, the ruling is historic. It reshapes family law by establishing gender equality in judicial separation and sets the stage for future debates over marriage, divorce, and personal freedoms in Uganda.