High Court affirms that cohabitation establishes equitable property interests, even without a formal marriage, declaring equal ownership despite a claim of fraudulent land title.

Waboga David
Jul 14
6 min read

A brief of Kyarimpa Beatrice v. Mukama Alex

Representation

The plaintiff was represented by Advocate Beinomugisha Charles while the defendant was represented by Advocate Tumwesigye Wycliff

Introduction

In Uganda, as in most common law jurisdictions, the law on joint ownership is a foundational principle of land law, frequently arising in contexts involving spouses, cohabiting partners, and business associates.

This legal doctrine presumes an undivided unity of title, possession, and interest among two or more persons in respect to the same property. As aptly explained by Justice Nagawa in the case of Nantongo v Konde (Civil Suit 148 of 2022) [2023] UGHCFD 160 (15 June 2023), drawing from Megarry’s Manual of the Law of Real Property (8th Edition by A.J. Oakley), joint ownership creates a legal fiction in which multiple individuals are treated, in relation to third parties, as a single composite owner.

For joint ownership to exist in law and equity, four unities must be present:

Unity of Possession – each joint owner has an equal right to possess and enjoy every part of the land;
Unity of Interest – each owner must hold an identical interest in terms of nature, duration, and extent;
Unity of Title – their interest must derive from the same document, instrument, or act;
Unity of Time – the interest of each joint owner must vest at the same moment.

Where these unities are satisfied, the law recognises the parties as joint tenants—entitling each to full rights in the entire property and invoking the right of survivorship, unless the tenancy is severed or converted to a tenancy in common.

In the recent decision of Kyarimpa Beatrice v. Mukama Alex, the High Court of Uganda reaffirmed and applied these legal doctrines in the context of a non-marital cohabitation that spanned over a decade. Although the parties were not legally married, they jointly acquired residential land in 2008 and cohabited until 2018, during which time they raised children and constructed a family home.

After the breakdown of the relationship, the plaintiff registered herself as the sole owner of the land title, prompting the defendant to file a counterclaim alleging fraud and asserting co-ownership.

The Court held that joint ownership does not solely depend on whose name appears on the title or who made direct financial contributions, but also on the intention of the parties, the circumstances of acquisition, and the common purpose of establishing a matrimonial or family home. The sale agreement named both parties; they lived together as a couple; and the building plans were also in both their names. As such, the Court found that the four unities were satisfied, and the property was jointly acquired.

This case highlights the growing importance of equitable doctrines, including constructive trusts and resulting trusts, in protecting the property rights of cohabiting partners. It reinforces the proposition that equity looks to intent and contribution in substance, rather than rigid formalities, and it sends a clear message: fraudulent exclusion of a co-owner from title registration will not override equitable interests created during cohabitation.

Facts

Between 2006 and 2018, the plaintiff Kyarimpa Beatrice and the defendant Mukama Alex lived together in a cohabiting relationship and had two children. They were not legally married, but jointly acquired land on 29 September 2008 for UGX 19 million, intending to build a family home. A certificate of title was issued in 2011.

In December 2018, their relationship broke down irretrievably, prompting the plaintiff to leave the home. She later registered the property in her sole name, which sparked the present dispute.

The plaintiff alleged constructive eviction and sought a declaration that she is the sole lawful owner, claiming she alone financed the purchase and construction. The defendant denied eviction, alleged fraud in registration, and counterclaimed for joint ownership and cancellation of title.

⚖️ Key Legal Issues

Whether the property was jointly acquired.
Whether the plaintiff’s sole registration was fraudulent.
What remedies were appropriate given the irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship.

Holding

Issue 1: Whether the suit property was jointly acquired

The court held that both the land and the residential house thereon were jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the defendant, notwithstanding the absence of a legal marriage. The court made this finding based on the following:

The sale agreement dated 29th September 2008 (Exh. P5) clearly indicated both names—the plaintiff and the defendant—as joint purchasers of the land measuring 0.102 hectares.

The parties cohabited between 2006 and 2018 and were blessed with two children. During this period, they lived together on the suit property.

The building plan for the residential house (Exh. P11) was registered in both their names.

While the plaintiff claimed she solely financed the construction, the defendant rebutted this with evidence from DW3 (Serwanja Isufu), who testified that he supplied construction materials to the defendant, and was paid directly by him.

The court concluded that, although the exact monetary contributions could not be established with certainty, the evidence showed a shared intention and effort to establish a joint home.

:The joint occupation, co-parenting, and documentation collectively proved that the suit property (land and house) was jointly acquired by both parties.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff was fraudulently registered as sole proprietor

The court found that the plaintiff was fraudulently registered as the sole owner of the suit property. This finding was premised on the following:

The plaintiff became the sole registered proprietor on 17 December 2018, shortly after separating from the defendant.

Evidence showed that the land seller (DW2, Birungi Jemimah) had signed blank transfer forms, which were handed over to both parties after the sale. The plaintiff retained these documents after the relationship broke down.

The plaintiff’s act of inserting her name alone on the transfer forms and excluding the defendant, without his knowledge or consent, constituted intentional deceit.

The court relied on the definition of fraud from Zaabwe v. Orient Bank & 5 Others, which includes any “intentional perversion of truth” and acts “calculated to deceive.”

The court found that the plaintiff suppressed the truth, made false representations, and acted in a way designed to extinguish the defendant’s interest in the jointly acquired property.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s registration was fraudulent and calculated to exclude the defendant’s rightful ownership, and thus should be cancelled.

Issue 3: What remedies are available to the parties

Based on its findings, the court issued equitable remedies to ensure fairness, particularly given that the parties were no longer in a love relationship and could no longer cohabit peacefully:

The court declared both the plaintiff and defendant joint owners of the suit property as tenants in common, meaning they share ownership equally but without survivorship rights.

The court observed:

“The love relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is no more. The defendant is in occupation of the suit property while the plaintiff lives elsewhere in rented property.”

Because of this permanent separation, the court ruled that continued joint occupation was untenable, and instead ordered the property to be sold and proceeds equally shared (50:50).

The court ordered cancellation of the plaintiff’s registration as sole proprietor under Section 161 of the Registration of Titles Act (RTA).

The Commissioner for Land Registration was directed to register both parties as co-owners.

A valuation surveyor registered under the Surveyors Registration Act (Cap. 303) was to be appointed by the Registrar to determine the current market value of the land and house.

The property is to be sold and the proceeds shared equally (50% : 50%) between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the suit.

The court opted for a practical and equitable resolution—recognising joint ownership while facilitating separation of interests through a court-supervised sale and equal distribution of proceeds.

🧑‍⚖️ Final Orders by the Court

The land is owned jointly by Kyarimpa Beatrice and Mukama Alex as tenants in common.
The plaintiff fraudulently registered herself as sole owner.
The Commissioner for Land Registration is directed to cancel the fraudulent certificate of title.
The Commissioner is to enter both parties as joint owners on the register.
A registered valuation surveyor will be appointed by the court.
Upon valuation, the property shall be sold, and proceeds shared equally.
Each party to bear its own costs.

📌 Significance

This case affirms that cohabiting partners who jointly acquire property have equitable rights, even without formal marriage.
The decision underscores that fraudulent registration using incomplete or blank transfer forms will not be protected by the Registration of Titles Act.
Courts will look beyond legal title to determine beneficial ownership based on contributions, intention, and conduct.
Provides clear application of Section 161 RTA on title cancellation and equitable redress.