Godamune vs Magilinnona – sllr 2009 volume 1 page 109

In the case between the plaintiff-respondent (owner of allotment 4C) and the defendant-appellant (owner of lot 5), the court addressed whether a purchaser of a landlocked subdivided portion, originally part of a larger land with road frontage, can validly claim a right of way of necessity over the adjacent land. The findings determined that self-created deprivation of access through subdivision does not entitle the purchaser to a legal right of way over a neighbor’s land. Reference was made to Roman law, and precedents such as Wilhelm vs. Norton and Suppa Navasivayam vs. Janapathipillai, establishing that any right of access must be derived from existing legal rights or express agreement. The court set aside the district judge’s limited relief previously granted to the plaintiff and dismis