LICENCES

A licence is permission given to a licensee to enter the licensor’s

land for some specified purpose (s) which otherwise would be a
trespass. In the case of Thomas versus sorrel (1673)vaugh 330 at
351;124 ER 1098 at 1109 Vaughan CJ said that a dispensation of
licence properly passeth no interest nor alters or transfers ppty in
anything but only makes an action lawful ,which without it would
have been lawful.

In Runda Coffee Estates ltd Versus Ujager Singh [1966]EA 564 it

was stated a licence does not constitute an interest in land and it
cannot be disposed of by will or intervivos or devolve by operation of
law.

Types of licences

1. Bare licence. Is a licence granted without valuable

consideration . it is the simplest form of licence . Eg an
invitation to a friend to come over to your house for dinner is
abare licence. Due to the fact that there is no valuable
consideration it may be withdrawn at anytime by the licensor
even in the middle of the dinner. Once licensor remains on the
land an action for trespass can be maintained.
2. Licence coupled with an interest/grant. Is a licence to enter
upon a licensor’s land for the specific purpose of taking
something that forms part of the land or is upon the land.
under this kind of licence no revocation of can be done while
 the grant is still in existence.it may be assigned provided it is
annexed with the interest .while a licence involves a right and
take a way something that forms part of the land.eg
minerals,timber etc the grant is called a profit a prendre which
constitutes an interest in land subject to the principle of
indefeasibility. It binds the subsequent purchasers of the land
to which it applies .license to take away goods on the licensor’s
land does not constitute an interest in land. The licence has a
right in the chattel which is on the land and a licence to enter
the land to take away the chattel.
3. Contractual licence. Is a licence granted for valuable
consideration. At common law a contractual licence like a
contract does not bind 3rd parties. Breach of it attracts
damages.
4. Licence protected by estoppel. Licensor may be created from
revoking a licence in certain circumsatnces. Refer to inwards
versus baker[1965]1 ALL ER 446.
Read the following cases;-
 City council of Kampala versus Mukibi[1967]EA 368
 City council of Kampala versus Mukubira and Anor
[1968]EA 497.
 Errington versus Errington and anor [1950]1 KB 290.
 Radaich Versus smith (1959)101 CLR 209.
 Street versus Mountford [1985]2 All ER 289.

SERVITUDES ON LAND
Term servitude means rights of use of another’s land in a specified
way . The rights considered are easements, profit a prendre,
restrictive convenants, customary rights and licence. With the
exception to licence that doesnot constitute an interest in land the
rest are and are subject to the principle of indefeasibility as they are
enforceable against whoever is the land owner.
Easements. It is a right attached to a particular piece of land that
entitles the owner of the land either to use the land of another
person in a particular manner or to restrict that other person’s use
of his /her land to a certain extent. The land to which the right is
attached is called the dominant land that over which the right is
exercised is the servient land.
An easement is an interest in land, subject to the principle of
indefeasibility is enforceable against any proprietor of the servient
land. A right over another person’s land does not become an
easement merely because the parties said so . it must certain
essential features of an easement prescribed under the general law
which ;-
1. There must be in existence of a dominant and servient land.
Under this a right cannot be an easement unless it is connected
with a dominant land that belongs to the person to whom the right
is given. The object of granting the right must be to benefit the use
of the grantee’s land and not the grantee independently of
ownership of land. In the absence of servient land then it is a mere
personal licence. The limitation is under the Water Act s.36.
A public right of way is not an easement because the right is
dedicated to the public at large irrespective of connection with any
dominant land.
2. The right must accommodate the dominant land.
A right granted is not an easement unless it confers a benefit on the
dominant land or some activity connected therewith and is
reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the land. For an
easement to accommodate the dominant land , the servient land be
close enough to the dominant land to confer a practical benefit on
it.[Hill versus Tupper]All ER 696.
 3. The dominant and servient land must not be owned or
occupied by the same person.
It is a requirement for an easement that the dominant and
servient land must be owned and or occupied by different
persons. The reason is an easement is a right exercised over the
person’s land for the benefit of one’s land.
The limitation to this is where one person who is servient land
allows many dominants.
4. The right must be capable of forming the subject matter of a
grant .
Means that there must be a capable grantor and a capable grantee.
The right granted must be capable of reasonable definition. Right
granted must be within the general nature of rights capable of
existing as easements.
Creation of easements.
(i) Easement by statute. A statute may authorize usually a
public authority to create easements for carrying out their
activities. Easements created by statutes need not have all
the essential characteristics of easements.
(ii) Easement by express grant or reservation. An easement by
express reservation is created where the owner sells part of
his land to another and in the instrument of transfer he
reserves a right of way over the land sold for the benefit of
the land he retains.
(iii) Easement by implied grant or reservation. This is best
explained in the case of quasi- easement in the case of
wheeldon VERSUS Burrows [1874-80] All ER Rep 669.
(iv) Easement of way of necessity. Where a land owner sells part
of his or her land and the part s/he retains is left without
any legally enforceable means of access to a public road, an
easement of way of necessity will be implied over the land
sold. Where a land owner grants part of his or her land to
another and the latter has no legally enforceable means of
access to the land then an easement of way of necessity
arises by operation of the law over the land retained. The
 easement arises by operation of law because it is a matter of
necessity and vital of the effective ownership of that part of
the land that the owner should have access to it, otherwise
the land would not be of much use to him or her. An
easement of way of necessity does not arise if there is an
alternative means of access that is practicably available to
the claimant as a matter of right. The fact that alternative
that is inconvenient does not does not entitle the grantee to
a way of necessity over the grantor’s land. The necessity for
access must exist at the time of the grant and not merely
arise later.
(v) Intended or implied easement. An easement that is required
to carry out the common intention of the grantor and the
grantee will be implied even though it is not expressly
reserved or granted in the conveyance. Such easement is
known as an intended easement. Wong V Beaumont
property Trust Ltd [1965]1QB 173.
(vi) Easements acquired by long user or prescription. At
common law an easement may be acquired by long user of
over 20 years even though there may not be any actual
evidence of grant of the easement. Elements for this are;-
must prove exercise by him or her of the alleged right for
20yrs,the right must not have been exercised with force,
right must be exercised openly and lastly must be exercised
without licence or persmission of the servient land.
(vii) Access to public road. At common law except in the case of
an easement of way of necessity already mentioned there is
no right of access over another’s land. This a statutory right
under section65 of the Roads Act no 16/2019.
NB show the difference under s.11 Access to Roads Act cap
350 and s.65 road Act 16/19.
(viii) Easement under the RTA. Sections 60&61 are vital. The
RTA does not provide an easement is created under the
RTA, it deals with the registration and protection.
Extinguishment of easements;
When the owner of the dominant land expressly releases the
servient land,merger, abandonment.
PROFITS A PRENDRE.
This confers a right to enter another’s land to take something off
the land. This right must relate to something which either
comprises part of the land such as gravel and sand or things
growing on the land such as timber and grass. The right to
pasture may be subject of profit a prendre. The grant may be for
an indefinite or fixed period. Under this there is no need of
dominant land like in easement the presence of servient
land(land from which something is taken) is enough.
This is an incorporeal hereditament so it confers an interest in
land unlike in bare licence where it is a right in land/personal
privilege conferring no interest in land. Once validly created it
would bind any person dealing in the subject land.
Read s.1 (i) RTA cap 230.
Restrictive covenant is a covenant which restricts the use of
the covenantor’s land (servient land) for the benefit of the
covenantee’s land (dominant land).
Covenant must be negative in nature and substance ie the
covenant must restrict the servient owner from doing something
and not impose a positive duty to do something. Haywood versus
Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881)8QB D 403.
The covenant must be made for the benefit and protection of the
land retained by the covenantee. London City Council V Allen
[1914-15]ALL ER
Building schemes/ scheme of development.
Is a plan produced by the developer for land in a particular area
to be developed in a particular area to be developed and
maintained in a particular way consistent with the scheme. The
rules are seen in Elliston versus Reacher[1965]ch 816. A party
wishing to enforce the covenants and the party against which it
is sought to enforce them must derive from the title from the
common vendor, vendor prior to selling the land must have
subdivided it into plots with the intention of imposing restriction
on all the plots and such restrictions should be consistent with
the general scheme of devt. The common vendor must have
intended the restrictions to be and they are of the benefit of the
other land retained by the vendor. The parties or predecessors
must have purchased their plots from the common vendor upon
the footing that the restrictions to which the purchases were
subjected were made for the benefit of all the other lots included
in the general scheme.
This is an equitable right that gives equitable remedies.