KAMPALA, Uganda The High Court land division has ruled that a guarantor of subdivided land must ensure that the grantee has practical access, either through express provision or implied quasi-easement.

The decision of the court comes after one Rehema Turyakira Omar purchased a subdivided portion of land, plot 32 11 Road, registered as plot 2E Commercial Lane, Naguru, from the deceased late Byoleko Epaphroditus.

However, Turyakira was denied the road to his plot, which was indicated in the title as a way through, but owners of adjacent plots 2A and 2B, who are the administrators of the late Byoleko’s estates, claimed that the only access was via Ntinda 11 Road.

Turyakira appealed to the court seeking a declaration for an access road from plot 32A and enforcement of recommendations by Kampala Capital City and the commissioner of lands to grant her access to his plot and further demanded compensation for the sale contract .

Turaykira told the court that the existing access road is by law plot 2A and plot 2B and that the purported access road on Commercial Lane onto plot 2E was removed from the deed print.

Turyakira also submitted that the defendants failed to show the court the access road on the certificate of title but kept on pointing to one on the deed print, which was long removed by the authorities.

The administrator of the estate of the late Byoleko Epaphroditus and others argued that the access road existed at the time of sale and was documented on the title, blaming Turyakira for failing to resolve disputes with neighboring landowners.

They further submitted that when the court visited the locus, it was physically established that actually the access road exists on the ground, and the title presented by Turyakira indicates there is an access road on the suit of land, which constitutes conclusive evidence of the contents, citing sections 60 and 61 of the Registration of Titles Act.

They added that there is a consent judgment that is binding on Turyakira’s submission about him and that the judgment (plots 2A and 2B) is illegal and absurd because he failed to set aside the said consent judgment.

The court presided over by Justice Naluzze Aisha Batala, J., found that plot 2E was landlocked due to the defendant’s failure to provide a viable access road as promised and that the purported access on Commercial Lane was nonexistent and that the one on Ntinda 11 Road belonged to neighboring plots.

” Where a landowner grants part of his land to another person, the courts will readily imply an intention to grant that other person all quasi-easements pertaining to such land.” Justice Batala ruled

Justice Batala found that an implied easement was intended by the seller and directed the Commissioner of Land Registration to resurvey Plot 32 Ntinda II Road to create access to Plot 2E.

General damages of UGX 10,000,000 (ten million shillings) were awarded with 10% annual interest; costs were granted to the plaintiff (Turyakira), but a permanent injunction was declined as the remedy lay in the resurvey.