Wakilii

Sserufungo v Kasozi (Civil Appeal 22 of 2018)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 99 · 2020 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision granting access rights and damages
Decision
The respondent retains the right to access his land through the disputed route; permanent injunction against the appellant blocking the access road remains in force

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that the disputed path had become an easement by necessity for the benefit of the respondent and other area occupants. The respondent's right to use the access route, initially granted by the previous landowner, had evolved from a licence into an easement through continued use over time and the absence of any alternative access. The appellant failed to prove he had purchased the disputed access portion as claimed, with irreconcilable inconsistencies in his evidence. The trial court properly exercised its discretion to grant access rights and issue a permanent injunction against blocking the road.

Outcome

The respondent retains the right to access his land through the disputed route; permanent injunction against the appellant blocking the access road remains in force

Facts

Kasozi Christopher owned a kibanja in Bulenga Village, Wakiso district, which he acquired from his late father. He claimed he had no access to the main road to ferry building materials. The late Kisomose, who owned adjoining land later purchased by Sserufungo Faustino, allowed Kasozi to use approximately 20 metres as an access route to ferry building materials. Kasozi used this access and erected a perimeter wall and gate in 1998. Between 2013 and 2016, after Sserufungo purchased the adjoining land, he blocked the access road by pouring bricks on it and inserting metal to block entry. Sserufungo claimed he purchased his plot in November 1990 from Charles Nalagira and that there was only a small footpath, not a vehicle-accessible road. During locus inspection, the court established that Kasozi lacked alternative access to his home and that other occupants were using the route harmoniously with Sserufungo. The trial court found in favour of Kasozi, granting a permanent injunction and damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  2. Whether the respondent had any alternative access to his land other than through the appellant's land.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate correctly applied the law relating to access roads and easements.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2016 upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the lower court awarded to the respondent, Christopher Kasozi.

Rules and key headnotes

Easements — Easement by Necessity — Creation Through Continued Use
Where a landowner has been granted permission to use an access route by a previous owner of adjoining land, and that route has been used continuously over time by multiple occupants, and no alternative access exists, the route becomes an easement by necessity for the benefit of the landlocked parcel and other area occupants, notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement or payment of consideration.
Licences — Distinction from Easements — Transformation of Licence into Easement
A licence to use land for a specific purpose such as ferrying building materials may evolve into an easement where the use continues over an extended period, the licensee has no alternative access, and the route serves multiple occupants as a matter of necessity, even though initially granted as a revocable personal permission.
Burden of Proof — Claimed Purchase of Access Rights — Inconsistent Evidence
Where a party claims to have purchased access rights but provides irreconcilably inconsistent evidence regarding the identity of the seller and the circumstances of the transaction, and calls no witness to corroborate the alleged purchase, the court will reject the claim as unproven.
Exercise of Discretion — Civil Procedure Act s.98 — Orders to Meet Ends of Justice
Under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may exercise its discretion to make such orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice, including granting access rights and issuing a permanent injunction where a party is landlocked and has no alternative means of accessing their land.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2000)
  • Nyanda Charles and Ngoli Peter v Izama Bosco (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2013)
  • Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corporation [1942] AC 154
  • Musisi Gabriel v Edeo Ltd and George Ragui Kamoi (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserufungo_v_Kasozi_(Civil_Appeal_22_of_2018)_[2020]_UGHCLD_99_(17_September_2020)
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.