Genevieve Amen Munduru
The High Court has granted Genevieve Amen Munduru interim primary custody of her child with Hillary Masambu and allowed her to travel internationally with the child pending the determination of their divorce case.
The ruling was delivered on May 22, 2026, by Justice Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga in an application filed under several provisions of the Judicature Act, the Children’s Act, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules.
Munduru filed the application seeking interim primary custody of Ilyan Masambu, the child of her marriage to Masambu. She also asked court to provide for the costs of the application.
In an affidavit supporting her application, Munduru said she was the child’s biological mother and had remained his primary caregiver and custodian from birth. She told court that she had already filed Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2024 against Masambu, in which she sought, among other remedies, primary custody of the child.
Munduru said she lives and works in Paris, France, under an employment contract with TotalEnergies. Because of the nature of her employment, she said she is occasionally required to travel to different destinations.
She argued that she is the only parent the child closely knows and must therefore travel with him whenever her work requires her to move. However, she said communication between her and Masambu had become strained because of the ongoing divorce proceedings and related disputes.
According to Munduru, the strained relationship had affected the child, particularly when Masambu allegedly refused to provide consent letters required for international travel. She cited an incident on October 8, 2025, when she and the child were travelling from Paris to Entebbe through Amsterdam on KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.
She said Dutch immigration officials at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport required a parental consent letter before allowing the child to continue with the journey. Munduru said she provided Masambu’s contacts to the authorities for verification, but he refused to issue the required consent.
As a result, she and the child were stranded at the airport for 24 hours. She said the delay disrupted their travel plans and caused financial losses through unplanned accommodation, meals and other expenses.
Munduru told court that although the divorce petition had been filed in 2024, the proceedings could take considerable time to conclude. She argued that the orders she sought were temporary and intended to make it easier for her to travel with the child while the main case was pending.
She further warned that without interim custody and authority to travel with the child, she could be forced to resign from her employment, which supports both her and the child. Alternatively, she said, she might have to leave the child in the care of strangers, which would not be in his best interests and could expose him to emotional distress and harm.
Munduru therefore asked court to grant her interim custody and unfettered authority to make cross-border travel arrangements with the child pending the final determination of the divorce case.
Masambu, in response, acknowledged that he was the child’s biological father and confirmed the existence of Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2024. However, he rejected Munduru’s claim that she was solely entitled to custody and care of the child.
He said he had always played an active parental role in the child’s life and maintained a close relationship with him. Masambu also said he had never objected to the child travelling with Munduru where proper arrangements had been made and communication maintained.
He denied unreasonably withholding consent for the child’s travel, saying his concerns were based on the need to protect his parental rights and safeguard the child’s welfare and security.
Masambu accused Munduru of making unilateral decisions affecting the child without adequately consulting him. He maintained that both parents had equal parental responsibilities and rights, and argued that granting Munduru unfettered authority to take the child across international borders could limit his access and involvement in the child’s upbringing.
He further argued that Munduru had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify interim primary custody. According to Masambu, custody, access and parental responsibility should be determined comprehensively during the substantive divorce proceedings rather than through interim orders.
Masambu also claimed that the application could be intended to reduce his involvement in the child’s life and facilitate the child’s permanent removal from his reach and jurisdiction without sufficient safeguards. He asked court to dismiss the application with costs.
Munduru was represented by Tumuhairwe Barbara, holding brief for Kusiima Byarugaba, while Masambu was represented by Neptune Advocates.
Counsel for Munduru argued that she was entitled to seek interim custody as the child’s biological mother and primary caregiver. The applicant’s lawyers also relied on Section 28 of the Divorce Act, which empowers court, at any stage of divorce proceedings, to issue orders concerning the custody, maintenance and education of minor children.
Masambu’s lawyers said he was not opposed to Munduru retaining custody while the child was in his tender years. They submitted that Masambu was willing to allow Munduru to keep custody until the child reached seven years of age, on the basis that this would be in the child’s best interests.
However, the lawyers maintained that Munduru had repeatedly acted without involving Masambu. They said both parents had jointly cared for the child from birth until 2023, when Munduru allegedly left Masambu’s residence in Australia and later relocated with the child from Uganda to France without his knowledge or consent.
The respondent’s lawyers further argued that, apart from one occasion when Munduru sought consent to travel with the child from Australia to Uganda in 2023, she had not sought or obtained Masambu’s consent for subsequent international travel involving the child.
In her ruling, Justice Byaruhanga said the application had to be considered in light of the need to preserve stability, continuity of care and the child’s welfare while the main custody dispute remained pending.
‘’ In my considered view, the present application must be approached from the standpoint of preserving stability, continuity of care and the welfare of the child pending the final determination of the substantive custody dispute in the divorce cause. At this interlocutory stage, the court is not called upon to conclusively determine permanent custody rights, but rather to fashion temporary arrangements that best safeguard the child’s welfare while balancing the legitimate parental interests of both parties,’’ said the Judge.
The judge said the court was not making a final decision on custody, but was instead required to establish temporary arrangements that would protect the child while respecting the interests of both parents.
The court found that Munduru had established sufficient grounds for interim primary custody and that limited authority to travel internationally with the child was necessary because of the child’s residence, welfare and Munduru’s employment obligations.
‘’I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of interim primary custody pending the determination of the main cause. I am further satisfied that limited ancillary authority to travel internationally with the child is necessary for purposes connected with the child’s residence, welfare and the Applicant’s employment obligations. However, such authority must be exercised reasonably and in a manner that preserves the Respondent’s parental access and involvement.’’
The application was consequently allowed in part.
Court granted Munduru interim primary custody of Ilyan Masambu pending the determination of Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2024. She was also permitted to travel internationally with the child for purposes connected with his residence and welfare, as well as her employment obligations.
However, the court directed Munduru to keep Masambu reasonably informed whenever international travel involving the child was undertaken. She must provide information about the child’s country of residence, travel itinerary and contact details.
Masambu was granted reasonable access to and communication with the child pending the final determination of the divorce case.
The judge clarified that the orders were temporary and would not affect the final decision on custody, access and parental responsibility in Divorce Cause No. 30 of 2024.
About The Author
