The court observed that that the law regarding joint property had been
properly applied and the respondent only received a share in the property
which was acquired after marriage to the appellant not prior property
acquired by the appellant. The court also observed that contribution to
acquisition of property can either be monetary or indirectly through
domestic work.
The court observed that the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that
property acquired by the appellant prior to marriage with the respondent
was matrimonial property on the basis of marriage vows as Uganda was a
secular state and matrimonial property only includes property acquired
by both parties during the subsistence of marriage.