1. The facts
The parties to this case; Kabuye Robert (the Appellant) and Nanyonga Teopista (the Respondent), cohabited for over a decade, from 1998. During this time, they resided in their main house while developing rentals on the land.
Later on, the Appellant married another woman, with whom he had a child, which prompted him to ask the Respondent to leave. She refused to leave. The Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 54 of 2018 against the Respondent seeking a declarations that he was the owner of a piece of land (suit land) in Ndejje in Lubugumu village, and that the Respondent be evicted from his house.
In his plaint, he stated that he constructed five rentals and permitted the Respondent and her child from a previous relationship to stay with him in his house on the suit land. The Respondent countersued, claiming that she was the lawful owner of the suit land and that the Appellant had fraudulently put the agreement in his name. She prayed for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit land.
On 30th July 2025, Justice Elizabeth Alividza delivered a judgment with far-reaching implications for the relations between cohabiting couples; which rose from an appeal against the decision of HW Patience Lorna Tukundane delivered on 8th June, 2022, at the Chief Magistrates Court of Makindye.
An overview of her decision is provided below.
2. Overview of the decision
Ownership of the land and cohabitation
(a) The Judge agreed with the decision of the trial Magistrate who found that both parties contributed to the purchase of the plot of land, but the developments were made solely by the Respondent.
(b) Cohabitation is defined as living or abiding or residing as man and wife. The nature of this relationship, though intimate, is not legally recognised, even though it is a form of cohabitation. Parties to such a relationship will most likely acquire, sell, alter, improve, trade, and dispose of all manner of real and personal property with the hope of living a comfortable life.
(c) Property disputes between cohabiting partners who are not legally married are thus resolved using general property law, trust law, common law, and principles of equity because cohabitation is not at par with marriage.
(d) To settle such disputes, the court requires evidence of direct and indirect contributions to property acquisition.
(e) Equity demands that property acquired during cohabitation belongs to both parties, but distribution will vary depending on the circumstances of each case.
(f) The court considered several circumstances such as:
· The fact that no children were born during cohabitation despite the fact that they had cohabited for over a decade.
· That the Appellant was paying the electricity bills, made the bricks and contributed to the development of the rentals on the land
· The Respondent’s evidence showing that she made most of the developments on the land.
· The Respondent’s evidence that she financed the developments on the land from her business and the SACCOs that she was part of.
(g) The evidence indicated that the Respondent contributed more financially, while the Appellant’s contribution was more in the form of transport and companionship, which could not be ignored.
(h) The Appellant is entitled to a share of the suit land, except the rentals that belong exclusively to the Respondent.
(i) Equity demands that the Appellant’s contribution is recognised although he may not have made substantial financial contributions.
3. Implications of this decision.
(a) Greater legal protection for cohabiting couples. Even though non-married cohabitation lacks statutory recognition, the property rights of individuals involved in them are still protected through principles of equity, common law, general property law, and trust law.
(b) Empowerment of vulnerable partners. In Uganda, where non-married cohabitation is normal, this decision protects those in informal unions who face eviction or dispossession at the end of a relationship.
(c) Calls for statutory recognition of such unions. Scenarios such as those in this case will fuel calls for statutory protection of informal unions like these, drawing backlash from those who view cohabitation as immoral.
(d) Greater attention to property arrangements. In light of the absence of statutory protection, couples who choose to cohabit can enter into agreements that clearly delineate their stakes in property to avert future conflicts.
Non-married cohabitations are an anathema in Ugandan society for cultural and religious reasons, reflected by the absence of statutory protection for such relationships. However, many Ugandans are engaged in such relationships. Denying them any form of legal protection would cause grave injustice. As such, the application of equity, common law, general property law, and trust law to protect the rights of the parties involved is a positive.