High Court Judge Musa Ssekaana. PHOTO/FILE/COURTESY
The High Court in Kampala has ruled that once you have gifted someone, you can’t turn around and demand the same gift back in case you develop differences along the way.
Justice Musa Ssekaana, the head of Civil Division of the High Court, in his October 31 ruling said a “gift” or a “present” is an item given to someone without the expectation of payment or return.
He added that a gift is understood to mean something given voluntarily.
The decision of the court follows a legal battle between St Peter's Senior Secondary School and a former deputy headmaster, Mr Dennis Odetta, over a wedding gift (a car) that the school gave to the latter and his wife on their wedding day.
The school management demanded to have the wedding gift, a Premio, back from Mr Odetta after he tendered in his resignation letter.
The school had argued that the vehicle had been given to him in his official capacity to facilitate his work as the deputy head teacher but not to keep it forever.
But the judge disagreed with this argument of the school, saying the car was voluntarily given to the deputy head teacher and his wife as a wedding gift and before a huge congregation.
“The plaintiff (Mr Odetta) was handed the car keys during their wedding before the entire wedding congregation, which included family members and friends as a gift and it was accepted and appreciated by the family and friends.
ALSO READ: How new marriage Bill will affect you
There is no indication of the said motor vehicle being given to the applicant (Mr Odetta) to facilitate his work as a deputy headmaster. This court had the benefit of watching a video recording of what transpired during the reception of the plaintiff’s wedding. It is without any doubt clear that the motor vehicle was given to the plaintiff as a gift,” he ruled.
He added: “The defendant’s (school) claim or evidence is unbelievable and an afterthought to give a contrary view that it was intended to facilitate the plaintiff (Mr Odetta) in his work. The plaintiff (Mr Odetta) should never have been facilitated to work well with a motor vehicle at a private function wedding. The defendant (the school) wanted to take ‘credit and praises’ at the kind gesture towards the plaintiff, which indeed happened and she cannot purport to revoke the gift by denying that it was one.”
ALSO READ: Marriage Bill: 'We are tackling reality'
Further in his analysis, the judge likened the conduct of the school to that of a ‘jilted lover syndrome’, where one seeks the return of all the gifts given during their love relationship.
“The plaintiff (Mr Odetta) was requested to return the motor vehicle because he had resigned from the position of deputy headmaster of the school. The demand for the vehicle was in retaliation for his sudden resignation upon their refusal to grant the plaintiff leave. It may appear that the defendant’s giving of the gift was not necessarily just an altruistic act,” Justice Ssekaana observed.
He added: “Maybe it was given in the hope that the plaintiff reciprocates in a particular way by remaining in employment of the defendant for life. The plaintiff’s refusal to continue in employment resulted in the demand to repossess the gift. This court is satisfied that motor vehicle Reg No UAZ 207C was given as a gift to the plaintiff on his wedding day.”
Justice Ssekaana ordered the registrar of the court to determine the market value of the car that the school gave to its former deputy head teacher in 2017 at the time and give the same to him.
