A divorce dispute involving the daughter of Works Permanent Secretary Bageya Waiswa and her husband has reportedly extended to the division of property, with the couple disagreeing over the future of a house they built together and an apartment that the wife says was a gift from her father.
The dispute has brought renewed attention to questions surrounding matrimonial property, family gifts and the rights of spouses when a marriage breaks down.
At the centre of the disagreement is a house in Kitukutwe that the couple reportedly acquired and developed during their relationship. The property is among the assets whose future the parties are seeking to resolve as they pursue divorce proceedings.
The husband maintains that the house was built during their marriage and that its division should be addressed fairly as part of the separation process. The parties have also discussed the possibility of selling the property and sharing the proceeds, although they have not reached a mutually acceptable settlement.
A second point of contention is a six-unit apartment that is registered in the wife’s name. According to the husband’s account, the couple lived in one of the apartments for more than five years, while other units generated rental income.
The husband argues that the couple’s occupation of the apartment, their family life there and his involvement in maintaining and managing the property should be considered when determining the parties’ respective interests.
He also says he undertook repairs and maintenance at the property and participated in managing tenants. He believes these circumstances should be taken into account during mediation and any subsequent court proceedings.
However, the wife’s position, as described by her husband, is that the apartment was a gift from her father and should not be treated as jointly owned matrimonial property merely because the couple lived there together.
She reportedly maintains that living in the apartment for more than five years does not, by itself, transform a personal gift into a matrimonial home or give her husband an automatic entitlement to ownership.
The disagreement highlights a complex question in family disputes: whether property acquired as a gift by one spouse can nevertheless give rise to a claim by the other spouse, depending on the circumstances surrounding its use, development and maintenance.
Under Ugandan law, the outcome of such a dispute depends on the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented. The fact that property is registered in one spouse’s name, or was received as a gift, does not necessarily resolve every question concerning a claim arising from the marriage. Equally, living in a property does not automatically confer ownership.
The couple has been involved in mediation as part of their divorce proceedings, but a comprehensive settlement remains uncertain while the property disagreements persist.
The husband has expressed a desire for what he considers a fair settlement, while the wife’s position on the apartment remains a major obstacle to agreement.
If mediation fails to produce a settlement, the disputed issues may require further consideration by the court.
For now, the central question remains whether the couple can agree on how to resolve their property interests while bringing their marriage to an end.
The matter illustrates how disputes over property can become among the most difficult aspects of divorce, particularly where family gifts, jointly developed assets and the use of rental income overlap.