Wakilii

Munyagwa Edward and Others v Henry Lukonge Matovu Birungi and Others (Civil Suit 73 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 332 · 2022 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking enforcement of easement of right of way
Decision
Suit dismissed — plaintiffs not entitled to declaration of access road, permanent injunction, or damages

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed a claim for an easement of right of way based on long usage. The court held that an access road cannot be acquired by conduct or long usage alone. Under the Roads Access Act, acquisition of a right of way requires following statutory procedure through the land tribunal, including negotiations and formal application. The plaintiffs failed to show any legal basis for the claimed easement, having neither paid compensation nor followed the statutory process. Even if no alternative route existed, this would not automatically entitle the plaintiffs to a remedy without complying with section 2 of the Roads Access Act.

Outcome

Suit dismissed — plaintiffs not entitled to declaration of access road, permanent injunction, or damages

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed they had enjoyed access to a road known as Lake View Drive through plot 3532 for over 40 years, which the defendants unlawfully blocked. The defendants are children of the late Josephine Lukonge, registered proprietor of plot 3532. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim, arguing there was no gazetted road on the land and that the plaintiffs had access to their homes through Pepsi Road in Kansanga. The plaintiffs sought to enforce an easement of right of way. Evidence showed the alleged access road passed through the defendants' late father's land, no compensation was paid, and the plaintiffs confirmed they had an alternative route, albeit longer. A locus visit confirmed the road was blocked with concrete poles, chain link, wooden poles, barbed wire and marram.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint in as far as 2nd to 7th plaintiff discloses a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs have a right of easement over the suit land.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Easements — Right of Way — Acquisition by Prescription
An access road cannot be acquired by conduct or long usage alone. Creation of access roads is a matter of law or negotiations between parties, not a right that can be imputed by conduct.
Easements — Right of Way — Statutory Procedure under Roads Access Act
Under the Roads Access Act section 2, where a landowner is unable through negotiations to obtain leave from adjoining landowners to construct a road of access to the public highway, the landowner must apply to the land tribunal for leave to construct a road of access. This statutory procedure must be followed to acquire a legal right of way over another's land.
Easements — Right of Way — Requirements for Dominant and Servient Tenement
For an easement to exist, there must be a dominant tenement and a servient tenement. A party cannot claim an easement of right of way over registered land without establishing ownership of land that would benefit from the easement and without following the legal process for acquisition.
Property Rights — Protection of Registered Proprietor
It is illogical to assume that one can acquire an interest of any kind over a registered owner's land without a legal basis. Allowing such acquisition would be an affront to the property rights enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stewart Gawaya v KCCA and Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2021)
  • Sengabi v Nakiyingi (Court of Appeal No. 590 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Munyagwa_Edward_and_Others_v_Henry_Lukonge_Matovu_Birungi_and_Others_(Civil_Suit_73_of_2019)_[2022]_UGHCLD_332_(31_October_2022)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.