THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
[FAMILY DIVISION]
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT, CAP 62
ADOPTION CAUSE NO. 42 OF 2024
AND
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
CHILD MUYAMA AKRAM BY WALUSIMBI RONALD AND
CHRISTINE KAY WALUSIMBI.
RULING BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CELIA NAGAWA
1.0 Introduction.
1.1 This is a Petition for the Adoption of the child Muyama Akram filed at
this court by Walumsimbi Ronald and Christine Kay Walusimbi as
Petitioners seeking orders that;
1. An order for the adoption of the child MUYAMA AKRAM by the
Petitioners be made under the Children Act with all necessary
directions.
2. That the Petitioners be allowed to travel and/or reside in the
United States of America or in any other country of their
choice with the child.
3. The costs of this Petition be provided for as above-mentioned
or otherwise as court may direct.
4. Such further and other orders should be made as the nature
of the case may require.
Page 1 of 12
2.0 Representation
2.1 At the hearing, the Petitioners were represented by Ms. Luchivya Faith
of M/S Luchivya & Company Advocates Plot 1, Post Office Close
Nkokonjeru.
2.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners raised issues for determination by
this Court;
i. Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain
this matter?
ii. Whether the Petitioners qualify to be appointed the Adoptive
Parents of the child?
iii. Whether the Application is in the best interests of the child?
2.3 When the matter came up for hearing, Counsel for the Petitioners
prayed that the written submissions filed before this court together
with the trial bundle be adopted by this Honourable court. Court
directed Counsel to submit on the background of the Petitioners and
the child among others.
3.0 Background of the Petitioners.
3.1 The 1st Petitioner is Ugandan Citizen residing at Kibuku District with
the child. The Petitioners have investment stock in the United States
of America and would love to travel with the child but they have failed.
They applied for the Adoption of the child to be able to travel with him.
3.1.1. The 2nd Petitioner is an adult American Citizen. She is married to the
1st Petitioner for now 20 years. They stay in Uganda at Katodo Cell,
Katodo Road, Bulagira Town Council, Kibuku District. The Petitioners
have established a school in the names of Yesu Afaayo Christian
School. The couple own a church know as New Hope Church Uganda,
Page 2 of 12
Type text here
the 2nd Petitioner is desirous of adopting the child. She assist the 1st
Petitioner in the ministry, they have a source of income since have run
as school and are serious farmers. They grow crops on 180 acres and
carry out fish farming. She has known the child since he was 5 months
old when the child was given to them by the Mbale police.
3.1.2. The Petitioners appeared before the Alternative Care Panel. The
Petitioners were approved to foster the child.
3.2. Background of the Child.
3.2.1. Muyama Akram, who is the subject of this Adoption is a twin child
born to Kimanayi Abubaker and a one CARO (Carol). Carol died of
heart failure 4 months after the twins were born in April 2016.
3.2.2. The child’s father was overwhelmed, desperate and confused not
knowing what to do with the twins. He sought the services of the
Probation and Social Welfare officer to have the children placed in the
care and support of a babies’ home. The PSWO placed the twins in the
Petitioners care and they have been with them since.
3.2.3. The Petitioners were then identified having shown a willingness to take
care of the child. They want to adopt the child and be able to travel
with him. The child has a bonded with the Petitioners. The child’s twin
sister also lives with the Petitioners.
4.0. Evidence of the Petitioner.
1. The 1st Petitioner presented his National Identity Card to prove
that he is a citizen of Uganda. “PEX1”.
2. The Petitioners presented an LC1 Introduction Letter marked
“PEX2” in evidence of their residence at Kadoto B Cell, Kadoto
Ward, Bulangira.
Page 3 of 12
3. The 2nd Petitioner is a citizen of the United States of America
and her passport is attached and marked “PEX3”
4. The Petitioners are married and their Marriage Certificate was
presented marked “PEX4”.
5. The Petitioners source of income is their investment stock in
America as well as a school they operate called Yesu Afaayo
Jubilee Christian Primary School in Kibuku District. Pictures
of the school and the pupils are attached and marked “PEX5”.
6. The first Petitioner is one of the directors and a founder of Simbi
Establishments Limited and a copy of Company Form 20 is
attached and marked “PEX6”
7. He is also one of the directors and a founder of Gilgal Hope
Centre Limited, an affiliate of New Hope Church and a copy of
Company Form 20 is attached and marked “PEX7”.
8. Photos of New Hope Church are attached and marked “PEX8”.
9. Photos of the child Muyama Akram from the time he was found
to date are attached and marked “PEX9”.
10. The Petitioners assert that they have fostered the child over a
period of 1 year and the foster care order and report are
attached and Marked “PEX10”.
11. The Petitioners presented recommendations on their suitability
to adopt.
12. The Petitioners presented proof of No Criminal Record marked
“PEX11” on the affidavit in support of the Petition.
13. The Father of the child and her paternal aunt consented to this
Adoption and the consents are attached and marked “PEX12”.
Page 4 of 12
4.1. Written Submissions.
4.2. Learned Counsel, Ms. Luchivya Faith, filed written submissions on
25th March 2025, she based her arguments on the respective affidavits
summarized above and cited several authorities. I have carefully
perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel
in determination of this Petition.
5.0. RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.
5.1. Issue 1. Whether this Honorable Court has Jurisdiction to
entertain this matter?
5.1.1. The Jurisdiction of this petition is provided for under Section 86 of
the Children Act, Cap. 62 and Rule 17 of the Children (Adoption
of Children) Rules. Section 86 (1) (b) of the Children Act, Cap. 62
which provides that in cases where either the child or the applicant is
not a citizen of Uganda, the application shall be made to the High
Court of Uganda.
5.1.2. In the instant application, the child Muyama Akram is a Ugandan born
of Ugandan parents. The 1st Petitioner is a Ugandan citizen while
the 2nd Petitioner is a citizen of the United States of America. This
is therefore an inter-country adoption and this Court has jurisdiction
to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this issue is resolved in the
affirmative.
5.2. Issue 2. Whether the Petitioners qualify to be appointed the
Adoptive Parents of the child?
5.2.1. Adoption is a sacred and transformative legal process that establishes
the profound bond of parent and child between individuals not
Page 5 of 12
connected by birth. This court is called upon today to determine
whether the petition before it meets the legal and moral thresholds
required to grant such a life-altering order.
5.2.2. This process typically involves transferring all parental rights and
responsibilities from the child's biological parents to the adoptive
parents See 55 Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Edn.
A. Thomson Reuters Business, 2009) 50. It creates a lifelong
relationship of parenthood between a child and the adoptive.
5.2.3. Section 87(1) (a) of the Children Act provides that ‘an adoption order
may be granted to a sole Applicant or jointly to spouses where;
a) the Applicant or at least one of the Applicants has attained the
age of twenty-five (25) years and is at least twenty-one (21) years
older than the child’.
5.2.4. The Petitioners are married having celebrated their union in the United
States of America, State of Wisconsin on 19th October 2005. The 1st
Petitioner is 44 years old and the 2nd Petitioner is 43 years old. The
Petitioners are over 21 years older the child. They are both over the
age of 25. They satisfy the age requirement under Section 86(1) (a) of
the Children Act. They presented the 1st Petitioner’s National ID, an
LC1 letter and the 2nd Petitioner’s passport bio data page marked
“PEX1, 2, 3&4”.
5.2.5. Section 88 (1) (a) and (b) of the Children Act provides that a person
who is not a citizen of Uganda may in exceptional circumstances adopt
a Ugandan child if he or she has stayed in Uganda for at least one year
and fostered the child for at least one year under the supervision of a
probation and social welfare officer’.
Page 6 of 12
5.2.6. These conditions are not merely procedural but serve as critical
thresholds intended to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the
child.
5.3. In the present case, the Petitioners claim to have been residents of
Uganda since 2012, specifically residing in Kadoto B Cell, Kadoto
Ward, Bulangira Town Council. They have submitted an LC1
Introduction Letter, marked as “PEX2”, to support their assertion.
However, this evidence stands in contradiction to their foster care
order, which clearly states that they only began fostering the child on
14th August 2024. Nonetheless, the Petitioners also presented several
photographs which suggest that they may have lived with the child for
a significantly longer period than officially recorded. While these
images offer some insight into the duration and nature of their
relationship with the child, they cannot override the formal
documentation that indicates the commencement of foster care.
5.4. The Law is that the one-year period of fostering must be both
formalized and supervised by a Probation and Social Welfare Officer.
This being said, the Petitioners, as according to the Foster Care
Certificate have not met the required one-year period. The mere
presence of a child in the Petitioners’ household does not satisfy this
statutory requirement unless there is accompanying evidence of
consistent, professional supervision by the probation and social
welfare officer.
5.5. The Court also has serious concerns about the short and basic nature
of the one-page report submitted in this case, said to be from the
Probation and Social Welfare Officer. Considering how serious and
permanent an adoption order is, this report is not enough.
Page 7 of 12
5.6. Adoption ends the legal connection between a child and their birth
family and creates a new legal parent-child relationship. A single page
cannot fully explain the child’s emotional, psychological, and living
situation, or show whether the Petitioners are truly ready and able to
care for the child in the long term. The law requires a full and careful
assessment because of how much is at stake for the child’s future. A
report this short and lacking in detail does not meet the legal standard.
It does not give the Court the confidence it needs to make a safe and
informed decision that protects the best interests of the child.
5.7. Another concern are the minutes of the National Alternative Care Panel
meeting held on 14th and 15th Dcember, 2023 at a meeting held at
Emerald Hotel, Kampala. At page 9 of the said minutes, the Petitioners
appeared before the panel together with the child (and other children).
At the time, it was noted by the panel as follows; “the child was born
on 24th December, 2014, his father is by the name Kimanayi Martin
and the biological mother was Justine Nasike (deceased). The mother
died due to heart failure and the father abandoned the child with their
aunt Nambuya Aziza who then took them to the Probation Office
because they were in a sorry state. The applicants were contacted by
the Probation office to foster the twins to which they agreed. The child
has been staying with the Petitioner since 2015”. At the Alternative
care panel the petitioner’s age was noted as 37 years for the 1st
Petitioner and 36 years for the 2nd Petitioner.
5.8. The father of the child, Kiwanayi Abubaker (I note that he was earlier
referred to as Kiwananyi Martin by the Alternative Care Panel) informed
the panel that the “fostering process had taken quite some time and
Page 8 of 12
that he was informed that the applicants would look after the child (ren)
until they were 18 years and they would return them to him”.
5.9. Amidst all this the Probation and Social Welfare Officer assigned to
this matter, who has allegedly been supervising the fostering
arrangement since 2024 or even earlier, failed to appear in court to
testify on the one-page report regarding the suitability of the
Petitioners as adoptive parents. This omission is not a minor
procedural irregularity, it is a fundamental breach of one of the core
safeguards in adoption proceedings.
6.0. The role of the Probation and Social Welfare Officer in adoption cases
cannot be overstated. Their testimony is essential for the court to
adequately assess:
a) The authenticity and depth of the relationship between the
Petitioners and the child.
b) The living conditions and home environment proposed for the
child,
c) The emotional and psychological readiness of both the child
and the Petitioners for the adoption,
d) Any potential concerns or red flags that may not be visible from
documentation alone.
6.1. The preparation of a report for the court by a Probation and Social
Welfare Officer, is to help court in the determination of whether the
adoption order will be for the welfare and best interests of the child.
6.2. The absence of the PSWO as well as the scanty Report presented by
the Petitioners, creates an evidentiary gap which this Court cannot
ignore. The Children Act specifically positions the Probation and Social
Welfare Officer as a gatekeeper to ensure that all adoptions are
Page 9 of 12
conducted in the child’s best interests. Without their professional
assessment and oversight, the Court is deprived of a critical layer of
verification and insight. Given the irreversible legal implications of
adoption, this absence undermines the Court’s ability to make a fully
informed and just determination.
6.3. Section 88(1) (c) of the Children Act, the Petitioners should avail court
with a no criminal record report. There was no Certificate of Good
Conduct and Police Clearance Report from Uganda Police Force and
Interpol for the Petitioners. Instead they presented a record check reply
form from Kenosha County Sheriff Department dated 08/04/2017 of
Walusimbi Ronald and Christine Walusimbi (both for the same date),
another dated 03/05/2018 from the same source and finally
02/02/2022. At the end of these report is a caution for
recommendation use of the said record check; “the accuracy of the
information listed is subject to data entry process, therefore inadvertent
errors may exist, the information may not reflect the actual court charges
and/ or dispositions. Please Note: based on limited information
provided this may not be the record requested”.
6.4. The LC1 Chairperson in his recommendation PE2 dated 24th
November, 2022 stated that the Petitioners had stayed with them for
over 25 years. I wonder what stopped the Petitioners from applying for
a Certificate of Good Conduct and a police clearance report from the
Uganda Police Force if they have indeed been living in the country. The
Petitioners therefore did not adduce sufficient evidence that they have
no criminal record.
6.5. In addition the consents that are presumed to have been signed by the
biological father and the paternal aunt, these relatives were not
Page 10 of 12
presented before this court to ascertain whether they indeed signed
the consent and if at all they understood the meaning of consenting to
an adoption petition. Given that in the Alternative Care Panel Report
the names of the biological father differ (Martin/ Abubaker) and him
wanting the child back at 18 years. A consent of a parent is necessary
for an adoption to be made by court. (See Section 90 (1) of the Children
Act).
6.6. This court has to be satisfied that the every person whose consent is
required and is not dispensed with has consented and understands
the nature and effects of the adoption, namely, that it will permanently
deprive that person of parental rights over the adopted child. (See
Section 91(1).
6.7. The provisions of Section 88 (1) and Section 90 (1) requires the
admission of evidence, documentary or otherwise, to determine an
adoption petition and this is therefore fundamental in any Petition to
succeed.
6.8. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Petitioners have not
met the necessary statutory and evidentiary thresholds required under
the Children Act. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the Negative.
6.9. Before I take leave of this issue, this court noted the negligence of
counsel while drafting this Petition, the child presented before court
being MUYAMA AKRAM, the Petition was presented with the names of
Nabulo Shadia and the witness statement for the 1st Petitioner has
names such as Nabilo Shadia and Nabulondela Jacinta in the place of
Muyama Akram. Identification is key in any Petition, and where the
child and the Petitioner are being represented then counsel owes them
Page 11 of 12
a duty to serve them diligently and with the seriousness the Petition
requires.
7.0. Issue 3 on whether the Adoption is in the child’s best interests in also
answered in the Negative as the Petitioners have not met the standard
of suitable adoptive Parents.
7.1. Accordingly, this petition is denied. No orders as to costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered electronically this 14th day of May,
2025.
________________________________
CELIA NAGAWA
JUDGE
Page 12 of 12