Kabuye Robert v Nanyonga Teopista (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that property acquired during cohabitation belongs to both parties under equity principles. Although the parties were not legally married, their 10-14 year cohabitation and joint contributions entitled the Appellant to a share. The court found the Respondent contributed more financially to developments but held the Appellant's non-financial contributions (transport, companionship, some construction materials) could not be ignored. The Appellant was awarded one-third of the value of the suit land and its developments as of 2018, excluding rental property exclusively developed by the Respondent.

Outcome

Appellant awarded one-third share of suit land and developments; Respondent to pay in agreed installments

Facts

The Appellant and Respondent cohabited for 10-14 years from 1998 to 2016-2018 without legal marriage. In 2005-2006, land measuring 32ft by 52ft by 40ft at Ndejje Lubugumu village, Makindye was purchased. The Appellant claimed sole ownership and that he allowed the Respondent to stay in a house he built. The Respondent claimed she was the lawful owner and provided the purchase money with her father's contribution. Documentary evidence showed conflicting purchase agreements dated 2006 and 2008, with the Appellant admitting the second was a forgery. The seller confirmed receiving payment from the Appellant and making only one agreement. During cohabitation, developments were made including a main house and rental units. The Respondent claimed she financed most developments through her food business earning UGX 30,000 daily. The Appellant claimed he paid utility bills and made bricks. When the Appellant married another woman and sought to evict the Respondent, she refused. The Chief Magistrate's Court found both contributed to land purchase but only the Respondent developed it, awarding the Appellant 50% of bare land value only.

Issues

1. Whether the Appellant is the owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the Appellant is a trespasser on the suit property?
3. Whether the purchase agreement dated 17th November 2006 was forged and if so by which party?
4. Whether the parties were fraudulent in dealing with the suit property?
5. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

• Appeal partly succeeds.
• Lower Court orders set aside.
• Both parties contributed to the development of the suit land and the Appellant is entitled to a third of value of suit land and developments.
• The suit land and developments shall be valued as of 2018 when the suit was filed in the lower Court.
• The Appellant is not entitled to any developments made after 2018.
• The Respondent to pay the Appellant his share in installments to be agreed upon by the parties.
• Each party bears their own costs in this Court and in the lower Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101

Cases cited (6)

• Father Nanensio Bequmisa and three Others v Eric Tiberaqa (SCCA 17 of 2000)
• Louinsa Nqnkua v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
• Miller v Minister of Pension [1947] ALLER 373
• Festo Androa & Anor v Uganda (SCCA 1 of 1998)
• Batabara Bettu v Mukamq Fred and another (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2018)
• Kaboqqoza v Banqi (Civil Appeal 19 of 2023)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Bakabulindi Judith v Dr. Jones Yosia Kyazze (Divorce Cause No. 38 of 2023)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.