Court in Kanungu has ruled that a woman identified as Fortunate Kyarikunda pay sh10m to Richard Tumwine after breaching marriage agreement.
Court records show they both started their love relationship in 2015 and that the duo later entered a promise to marriage agreement in 2018.
Court records show they both started their love relationship in 2015 and that the duo later entered a promise to marriage agreement in 2018.
The magistrate further ruled that Kyarikunda pays legal costs incurred by Tumwine in prosecution of his case.
“I note, from the exhibit, several mobile money transfer transactions from the plaintiff’s cell phone in names of Richard Tumwine to the defendant’s cell phone in names of Fortunate Kyarikunda,” the magistrate observed.
The magistrate added: “From the exhibit, it is indicated as a budget for introduction for Fortunate Kyarikunda’s parents’ home and several items worth Shs5million are indicated on the list and the comments of the defendant appreciating the budget and requesting for more financial support to enable her go to Rubanda is clearly indicated.”
At hearing of the case, Tumwine told court that the introduction ceremony was slated for February 2022 but it did not take place with no justifiable reason given.
The court heard that Kyarikunda came up with an excuse that her parents have stated that their daughter should not get married to an older man referring to Tumwine.
But the court held: “This is equally unreasonable, a misrepresentation and a fraud. In any case, the defendant had all the opportunity to reject the plaintiff’s love requests at the earliest point possible and avoid interfering with his financial obligations.”
The court observed that the two people were engaged in a love relationship and that from the exhibits presented, arrangements for an introduction ceremony were made.
“The defendant (Kyorikunda) suggested that it takes place in February 2022 and the said date passed despite the plaintiff’s preparations for the introduction. The excuse the defendant gave was that she could not get married to an old man, the plaintiff, as if she did not see young men during there over four years courtship,” the magistrate ruled.
