Reknowned Educationist Prof Badru Katerega has won the first battle of court petition where his estranged wife Jolly Katerega accuses him of Domestic Violence.
Grade One Magistrate ruled that the Applicant (Jolly Katerega) and respondent (Badru Katerega) are married with 3 children Badru Kateregga aged 12 years, Bayana Kateregga aged 12 years and Bakheet Kateregga aged 5 years.
“I have found that this application did not disclose any grounds for the grant of a protection order against the respondent. Therefore, the application can only suffer one fate which is a dismissal. Accordingly dismiss this application on the issue of costs, it is important to stress the provisions of the law. It is now well-established law that costs generally follow the event,”Arinaitwe Elisha said.
According to the applicant in September 2024, the respondent deserted their matrimonial home abandoning the Applicant and children.
She further explained that on 13 September 2024, she reported a case of violence and Cyber Harassment vide SD REF: 99/13/09/2024 at Kabalagala Police Station against the Respondent, which case is still under investigation.
She argued that she believed that the said case serves as a “substantive complaint of domestic violence”. She also contended that this Application is, in itself a substantive complaint for domestic violence.
She denied the allegation that this Application was meant to subvert the course of justice in the criminal investigations arising from the Respondent’s case SD 66/19/05/2025.
She contended that Respondent and his agents continue to subject me to verbal abuse and2harassment by sending her threatening messages in which they refer to her using deeply denigrating and defamatory language such as “bitch’ ‘thief’ (sic) and other defamatory sluts.
“The complaints were investigated and found to be baseless and dismissed. The respondent then resorted to issuing public press statements aimed at embarrassing intimidating and discrediting the Applicant.
Respondent then resorted to cyber harassing the applicant, following her to various locations, loitering at her residence and sending her threatening messages.
This prompted her to lodge a complaint of cyber harassment and threatening violence at police,”the petition reads.
“The applicant asked me to issue a protection order restraining the respondent and his agents from threatening to kill or cause harm to her, stalking and accessing the applicant at her place of work, residence and any other place,”Airinatitwe stressed in the ruling.
She further asked me to prohibit the respondent from accessing any place or premises where the applicant and her children stay, frequent or attend without express 1consent of the applicant.
She also prayed for a restraint order against the respondent restraining him from contacting the applicant and children, from abusing the applicant and her relatives and children.
She further asked me to restrain the respondent from publishing tarnishing statements against the applicant.
She asked me to issue a suspended warrant of arrest and costs. She attached an affidavit to support the application and the affidavit re-echoed what was in the application.
In his reply, the respondent Prof Badru Katerega stated that the application is not properly before court since it was an application for a protection order because it lacked a complaint for domestic violence.
He also argued that the application is intended to subvert the criminal course of justice following a police case of SD 66/19/05/2025.
He denied ever deserting his home and refusing to provide for his family. He also denied ever harassing the applicant but maintained that he is on the course of seeking justice for criminal cases of attempted murder and his press statement was in respect of failure of the criminal investigations department to follow up on his complaints.
He denied that neither him nor his family members threatened or stalked the applicant and or even loitered at his home in Buziga or in any place at night.
He denied being violent or even ever threatening the applicant. He contended that following actions of infidelity, he relieved the applicant from working at Kampala University in September 2024.
He concluded that the application is made without any legal basis, an abuse of court process and ought to be dismissed with costs.
In rejoinder applicant contended that there is no requirement under the law for “a substantive complaint of domestic violence” for the court to entertain this Application.
The Applicant was represented by Counsel Ocen Bonny from Inq Advocates while the respondent was represented by M/S Muwema & Co. Advocates and solicitors. Both counsel filed written submissions. Their submissions have greatly aided the court in coming up First of all, I have not found a clear legal provision requiring a victim of domestic violence to commence her pursuit of justice with a complaint of domestic 4violence. Whereas, a complaint would be necessary in the circumstances as evidence to support this application,