High Court affirms that property acquired during cohabitation may be shared where contributions are proven, emphasising equitable Distribution to prevent unjust outcomes
- Waboga David
- Aug 14
- 4 min read
Introduction
Uganda does not recognize cohabitation as a form of marriage, but courts have been flexible in enforcing equitable principles where couples have cohabited for extended periods and acquired property together.
The legal doctrine of joint ownership that courts have mostly used presumes an undivided unity of title, possession, and interest among two or more persons in respect of the same property.
As aptly explained by Justice Nagawa in 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 holds an identical interest in terms of nature, duration, and extent;
Unity of Title – each interest derives from the same document, instrument, or act;
Unity of Time – the interest of each joint owner vests at the same moment.
Where these unities are satisfied, the law recognizes 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 Kyarimpa Beatrice v. Mukama Alex, the High Court of Uganda reaffirmed and applied these doctrines in the context of non-marital cohabitation spanning over a decade. Although the parties were not legally married, they jointly acquired residential land in 2008 and cohabited until 2018, raising children and constructing a family home. After the relationship broke down, the plaintiff registered herself as the sole owner of the land, prompting the defendant to file a counterclaim alleging fraud and asserting co-ownership.
Justice Bernard Namanya held that joint ownership does not depend solely on whose name appears on the title or who made direct financial contributions, but also on the parties’ intention, circumstances of acquisition, and the shared purpose of establishing a family home. With the sale agreement and building plans in both their names, the Court found that the four unities were satisfied and the property jointly acquired.
Most recently, in Kabuye Robert v. Nanyonga Teopista (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 597 (30 July 2025), Lady Justice Elizabeth Jane Alividza held that even in the absence of legal marriage, long-term cohabitation and joint contributions to property acquisition and development create equitable entitlements.
The Court further emphasized that parties in such relationships may be entitled to a proportionate share of property based on both financial and non-financial contributions, reinforcing the principle that equity demands fair allocation to prevent one party from leaving “empty-handed” after an extended cohabitation.
Brief Facts
The Appellant, Kabuye Robert, filed Civil Suit No. 54 of 2018 at the Chief Magistrates Court, Makindye, seeking a declaration of ownership over land measuring approximately 32ft by 52ft by 40ft at Ndejje Lubugumu Village, Makindye Subcounty, and sought the eviction of the Respondent, Nanyonga Teopista, from his house. The Appellant alleged that he had allowed the Respondent and her child from a previous relationship to reside in the house but later requested her to vacate after marrying another woman, Nakayenga Raste.
The Respondent denied these allegations and counterclaimed, asserting that she was the lawful owner of the property and that the Appellant had fraudulently altered the purchase agreement to reflect his name. She sought a declaration of ownership and a finding that the Appellant was trespassing.
During trial, both parties presented witnesses—three each—and the court conducted a locus visit.
The trial court examined issues of ownership, alleged trespass, the authenticity of the purchase agreement dated November 17, 2006, and allegations of fraud in dealings with the property.
The Appellant appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings on evidence evaluation, contribution to property development, and alleged alteration of the purchase agreement, while the Respondent defended the trial court’s decision.
Resolution
The Court considered the Appellant’s complaint that the trial Magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole. In reviewing the record, the High Court emphasized its role as a first appellate court to re-hear the case and make an independent assessment of the evidence.
The Court noted that, while both parties provided testimony and documentary evidence, including multiple versions of the purchase agreement, some documents were admitted to be forgeries or inconsistent with other evidence.
The Court concluded that the trial Magistrate had fairly evaluated the evidence presented, taking into account both the Appellant’s and Respondent’s testimonies, as well as observations from the locus visit.
2. Contribution to the Development of the Suit Land
The Court carefully examined the contributions made by each party during the cohabitation period. Evidence indicated that:
The Appellant contributed non-financially, providing support, transport, and companionship, and participated in minor improvements such as brick-making and paying utility bills.
The Respondent made the greater financial and physical contributions toward developing the property, including constructing the main house, rental units, and unfinished buildings.
While the Respondent bore most of the development burden, the Court held that equity required recognition of the Appellant’s contributions and long-term cohabitation. The Court determined that the Appellant was entitled to a proportionate share of the property to prevent him from leaving “empty-handed,” even if he did not directly fund most of the developments.
3. Alleged Alteration of the Purchase Agreement
The Appellant claimed that the purchase agreement dated 17th November 2006 was altered to include joint ownership in his favor.
The Court reviewed documentary and oral evidence, noting inconsistencies and testimonies regarding the origin and modifications of the agreement.
The Court found that neither party could conclusively prove fraudulent alteration in their favor, and that the dispute over the agreement did not negate the equitable entitlements arising from their long-term cohabitation and joint contributions.
Conclusion and Orders
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, adjusting the remedy to reflect equity and fairness:
Both parties contributed to the acquisition and development of the suit land; the Appellant is entitled to one-third of the value of the land and its developments as of 2018.
The Appellant has no claim to developments made after 2018.
The Respondent shall pay the Appellant his share in instalments, to be agreed upon by the parties.
Read the full case
.jpg)
