The Kampala Family Court has rejected a request for a monthly maintenance fee of UGX 186 million made by Jalia Nagawa, the wife of City Tycoon Drake Lubega, in an ongoing high-profile divorce case. The judge, Justice Elizabeth Kabanda, questioned the marriage in the divorce petition, noting that Lubega claimed he was never married to Nagawa, the petitioner.

The judge has set the divorce petition for a hearing on November 9, 2023. Nagawa had initially requested the court to compel Lubega to provide her with UGX 186 million each month for maintenance while the court determines the dissolution of their marriage.

In 2020, Nagawa filed a divorce petition, accusing her husband of cruelty. During the hearing of the maintenance application, Lubega’s lawyer raised concerns about the constitutionality and availability of the remedy of maintenance before the court dissolves the marriage, citing a case that argued this remedy was unconstitutional.

However, Nagawa’s lawyer argued that this interpretation of the case was incorrect and that the Constitutional Court had modified the remedy, rather than nullifying it.

In her divorce petition, Nagawa seeks to separate from Lubega and divide the properties they acquired together. They got married in 1989 under the Kiganda customary marriage in Kampala. Nagawa accuses Lubega of violence, abandonment, economic servitude, and denial of business opportunities. She also alleges that they have separated, and there is no hope of living together as a married couple.

Nagawa seeks a decree to dissolve their marriage, orders regarding their matrimonial and business properties, costs related to the petition, and any other relief the court deems appropriate. Lubega denies the allegations and claims they never engaged in joint business during their time together. He also mentions that he married someone else and that it would have been impossible to do business with Nagawa while living with his lawful wife.

In the ongoing legal dispute, Nagawa further identified 30 properties that she believes she worked for and demands to take at least five of them, while Lubega denies owning most of the properties listed in the application. The case highlights the complex marital and business arrangements in this high-profile divorce proceeding.