Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal el-Aqwal: Journal of Sharia and Comparative Law Jurnal HAM
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Religion Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
(Mis)reading ‘Sharia’ into the Ugandan Succession Act? Edirisa Miyingo v Ismail Ssempijja and Another (Civil Appeal 189 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 273 (19 August 2025) Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum Komparatif Volume 5 Issue 1 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri Profesor Kiai Haji Saifuddin Zuhri Purwokerto

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24090/el-aqwal.v5i1.15443

Abstract

Section 1 of the Succession Act provides that, “except as provided by this Act, or by any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall constitute the law of Uganda applicable to all cases of intestate or testamentary succession.” The phrase “any other law” refers to written law. During the drafting of the Succession (Amendment) Act 2022, a proposal that the Succession Act should provide for circumstances in which Sharia would govern the estates of Muslims who die intestate was considered but not approved by Parliament. Consequently, the Succession Act remains the sole law governing the distribution of the estate of any person who dies intestate. Notwithstanding this legislative position, in Edirisa Miyingo v Ismail Ssempijja and Another (2025) the Court of Appeal held that the distribution of the estate of a Muslim who had died intestate in accordance with Sharia was not contrary to the Succession Act, despite acknowledging that Sharia is unwritten law. This article argues, inter alia, that the Court’s approach is inconsistent with the drafting history of the Succession Act and amounts to an impermissible reading-in of an exception that Parliament deliberately declined to enact.
Konstitusionalitas Pernikahan Poligami Muslim di Uganda: Sebuah Komentar atas Perkara Women's Probono Initiative melawan Jaksa Agung (Permohonan Konstitusional No. 12 Tahun 2021) [2025] UGCC 6 (10 Juli 2025) Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Jurnal HAM Vol 17 No 1 (2026): Edisi April
Publisher : Badan Strategi Kebijakan Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/ham.2026.17.21-34

Abstract

The Constitution of Uganda (1995) neither expressly permits nor prohibits polygamy. However, its drafting history shows that the delegates were aware that some Ugandans were in polygamous relationships (in particular polygyny). Neither the Customary Marriage (Registration) Act nor the Marriage and Divorce of Mohammedans Act expressly provides for polygamy. However, customary and Muslim marriages are potentially polygamous and there are many instances in which men in such marriages have several wives. There is no known ethnic or religious group in Uganda that practices polyandry. Unlike in some African countries, in Uganda polyandry is not an offence. The research question to be answered in the paper is whether polygamy is constitutional. In other words, whether the constitution could be interpreted as permitting polygamy. In Women's Probono Initiative v Attorney General (2025), the Constitutional Court of Uganda dealt with the question of whether polygynous marriages (both customary and Muslim) are unconstitutional on the ground that, inter alia, they discriminated against women (for example, by not allowing polyandry); they amount to torture and they violate the right to human dignity. The Court also dealt with the question of whether Islamic law which provides that a wife inherits less than a husband is discriminatory. The Court answered all the above questions in the negative. In this article, the author argues that the Court interpreted the Constitution correctly. However, the author suggests ways in which its decision could have been strengthened. The author also highlights some of the future implications of the Court’s decision.
Co-Authors