High Court Affirms That A Registered Proprietor of Land is Entitled to Physical Access to Their Property as a Matter of Law and Equity — Where No Access Is Provided, Courts May Imply An Easement

Brief of Rehema Turyakira Omar v Administrator of the Estate of the Late Byoleko Epaphroditus and Others (Civil Suit No. 883 of 2016) [2025] UGHCLD 53 (6 May 2025)

Area of Law: Property law—easements—access to landlocked plot—seller failed to ensure access route—court can imply easement

Introduction

The High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that a landowner has the right to access her property through an easement, even where the access road was not formally in existence at the time of purchase.

The ruling arises from a suit filed by Rehema Turyakira Omar (the Plaintiff) seeking enforcement of her right to access Plot 2E, Commercial Lane, which she had lawfully purchased but was later blocked from accessing.

Background and Key Facts

• On purchasing Plot 2E, Commercial Lane, the Plaintiff believed her access road was located along Commercial Lane, as suggested by the certificate of title.

• However, upon taking possession, she was denied access by owners of adjacent Plots 2A and 2B, and was informed that access could only be lawfully made from Plot 32A Ntinda II Road.

• The Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and the Commissioner for Land Registration issued a report recommending that access to Plot 2E be created from Plot 32A, Ntinda II Road.

• The Plaintiff initially sued KCCA and the Commissioner but later withdrew the claims against them, leaving only the seller, Epaphroditus (since deceased, now represented by his estate administrator), as the Defendant.

• The Defendant argued that at the time of sale, there was no designated access road on ground, and that the Plaintiff had misconstrued the nature of access as shown on the certificate of title.

  
  

🔹 Court’s Observations and Key Findings

After conducting a locus visit and hearing testimony, including from a senior registrar in the Office of the Commissioner Land Registration, the Court made several important findings:

1. It was demonstrated that Plot 2E has no independent access road and is essentially an island.

2. The access previously used by the Plaintiff runs through Plot 2A and 2B, and was not meant for Plot 2E. Resistance from owners of those plots further confirmed this.

3. The Court accepted the Plaintiff's position that an access road was expected as part of the transaction with the late Byoleko (the original seller), and that its non-existence amounted to a denial of a vital right.

4. Under easement principles, where a landowner transfers part of their land, the law will imply the grant of any “quasi-easements” necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of that land. The Court cited Shah Champshi Tejshi v Attorney General of Kenya (1959) EA 630 as authority.

   
   

🔹 Court’s Orders and Relief Granted

Justice Bitala found in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Court issued the following binding orders:

✅ Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to an access road through the Defendant’s remaining land.

✅ The Commissioner for Land Registration is directed to re-survey Plot 32 Ntinda II Road to properly create Plots 32A and 32B and facilitate access to Plot 2E.

✅ Creation of a new access road to Plot 2E from Ntinda II Road as originally contemplated in the transaction.

✅ General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff for inconvenience and denial of access.

✅ Interest on general damages at 10% per annum until payment in full.

✅ Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

The Court declined to issue a permanent injunction, noting that a new access would be created following a fresh survey, and the order would be premature.

📚 Rule of Law:

Where a landowner subdivides and sells a portion of land that is landlocked or without a direct access road, the law will imply an easement necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the land sold.— See: Shah Champshi Tejshi & Others v Attorney General of Kenya (1959) EA 630 at 638

⚖️ Key Takeaways

1. Easement May Be Implied Where Access Is Necessary

   When land is sold without physical access, courts may imply an easement to ensure the purchaser can reasonably enjoy the land.

2. Quasi-Easements Convert to Legal Easements Upon Subdivision

   If a seller uses part of their land for access before selling a subdivided portion, courts may infer that the access right transfers with the land as a quasi-easement.

3. Survey Errors Can Be Rectified Through Judicial Orders

   Where a land survey fails to provide for access, the court may reverse the survey and order a new one to ensure legal access is granted.

4. Damages and Interest May Be Awarded for Inaccessibility

   A buyer denied access to their land may recover general damages and interest due to the inconvenience and deprivation suffered.

5. Vendors Must Ensure Legal Access When Subdividing and Selling Land

   Sellers must not only show access on the title but ensure it exists on the ground; failure to do so may result in court-imposed remedies.

🔹 Legal Significance

This decision affirms that:

1. A registered proprietor of land is entitled to physical access to their property as a matter of law and equity.

2. Where no access is provided, courts may imply an easement and direct rectification through a re-survey or administrative action.

3. The doctrine of implied easements is alive and applicable in Uganda, especially in resolving subdivision disputes and protecting bona fide purchasers.

4. Landowners who sell subdivided plots without making clear or enforceable arrangements for access risk court intervention and possible reversal of transactions.

Prepared by Catherine Gune

Legal Scholar at Uganda Christian University

LLB2