MNK vs. POM

Nature of the Case

The case involved a couple that had been living together for more than 20 years but were not married. After the end of their cohabitation, POM was evicted by MNK from the home, and sought to enforce his share of the property acquired during the subsistence of their cohabitation relationship based on the Married Women’s Property Act (now repealed). The court held that although there was long cohabitation, the presumption of marriage was inapplicable here because a new legal regime was necessary. The court found that instead, ordinary laws governing property rights were applicable and a series of parameters could be used to determine the property breakdown by share. The court directed the legislature to formulate and enact a statute to clarify the rights of cohabitees in a long-term relationship.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

For the parties themselves, the court held that the suit property should be divided based on direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the suit property as well as the non-monetary contributions made to the property, such as maintaining or improving the property. POM was granted 30% of the proceeds from sale, while MNK was granted 70% of the proceeds from sale.

The case also included a directive from the Supreme Court that Parliament devise a new statute that would deal with the ‘presumption of marriage’ doctrine and clarify how to protect the rights and interests of parties and families in long-term partnerships that do not amount to a marriage. To date, the Court’s call to Parliament in collaboration with the Attorney General is in progress. ISLA and others have argued that the Supreme Court should have set out guidelines for the new legislative framework.

Significance of the Case

The decision is important for those living in long-term relationships with partners who are not married, and their rights and obligations at the end of such a relationship. By distinguishing between presumption of marriage and long cohabitation, the Supreme Court held that there is a deep need to formulate and enact statute law that deals with the inequities that occur during the dissolution of a partnership. The court acknowledged that it is increasingly common for two adults to live together for long durations without desiring or intending to enter into a marriage, and that the impact of this is that those ‘family formed unions’ need to be recognized and protected by the law.

For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.