1

According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 1
According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 1
According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 1
According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 1
According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 1
According to , a
license is a mere
permission which
makes it lawful for the
licensee to do
what would otherwise
be a trespass.
Creation of such a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land. In Thomas V
2
Sorrell Vaughan CJ
had this to say, a
dispensation of license
properly
passeth no interest,
nor alters or transfers
property in anything,
but only makes an
action
lawful which without it
would have been
unlawful. In Street V
3
Mountford , Lord
Templeman stated
that a licence in
connection with land
while entering the
licensee to use the
land for the purposes
authorised by the
license does not
create an estate in
land. A license
cannot therefore bind
a successor in title of
the licensor as a
matter of property
law. Because a
license does not
constitute an interest
in land, it cannot be
disposed of by will or
intervivos or
devolve by operation
4
of the law . For the
same reason, under
the general law, a
license only
binds a party to the
agreement but not a
stranger even if he or
she purchases the
land with
5
notice . The boundary
of license and leases
is drawn on the law of
property, in Radaich V
6
Smith , an agreement
was held to be a lease
rather than license as
its face stated
 UGANDA MARTYRS UNIVERSITY

NAME: ANNET NYINOMUNTU

REG. NO: 2019-B411-12400

COURSE UNIT: LAND TRANSACTION

LECTURER: MR. EMMANUEL MALUNGA ACIDRI

QUESTION.

Your lecturer was supposed to teach the LLB 2 land transactions class on the topic
of Licences – as stipulated in the Course Outline. Unfortunately, while out
‘chilling’ with friends the previous night, he was served several glasses of entuurire
drink that was mistaken for bushera. He is too drunk to say anything sensible, let
alone teach law. However, the Dean has been informed that you are a dangerous sub-
stitute for land transactions and can ably teach the topic. He has therefore asked you
to prepare a written brief on the topic to verify these claims before letting you appear
for the class.
Do the needful.
According to the case of Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1980] UKHL 14, the
House of Lords defined a licence as "a personal privilege or permission to do
something upon the land of the grantor which, without such permission, would be
unlawful".

1 Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1980] UKHL 4

In this case, the Bolands had taken out a mortgage on their property with Williams &
Glyn's Bank, and subsequently transferred the property into joint ownership with the
wife's sister. The Bank argued that the transfer was invalid because they had not been
informed of it, and therefore their mortgage was still the only legal charge on the
property. The sister argued that she held a licence from the Bolands to live in the
property, which gave her a right to remain there even if the mortgage was still
outstanding. The House of Lords ultimately held that the transfer was valid and the
sister's licence was also valid. They defined a licence as a personal right or privilege
granted by the owner of the property to another person, which does not create any
interest in the property itself. The licence can be revoked or terminated at any time,
and does not confer any right of exclusive possession on the licensee.

This case demonstrates the importance of understanding the nature and scope of a
licence, particularly in the context of property transactions and ownership rights. A
licence is a personal right granted by the owner of the property, and does not create
any legal interest in the property itself. As such, it can be an important tool for
allowing others to use or access a property without transferring ownership or creating
a lease.

TYPES OF LICENSES

Bare licenses. In reference to the case of wood v leadbitter, 2bare licenses refer to
licenses that grant someone the right to enter another person's land without giving
them any other rights or obligations. These licenses are also known as "permission
licenses" because they only allow the person to enter the land and do not create any
other legal relationship between the parties. In this case, Wood was granted a bare
license to enter Leadbitter's land to gather firewood, but the license did not give Wood
any right to exclusive possession or ownership of the wood.

Furthermore, a bare license is a type of license which allows a person to enter onto the
land of another person without creating any legal relationship between the parties.
This means that the person holding the license does not have any ownership interest
or right to exclusive possession of the land or property.

2 wood v leadbitter 13M & W 838

Licenses by estoppel. According to Black’s Law dictionary 3, Licence by estoppel is a
legal doctrine in which a person who has been granted an implied licence to use
someone else's property, even though there is no written or express agreement to that
effect. This doctrine is based on the principle of estoppel, which means that a party is
prevented from denying a fact or claim that he has previously accepted, when it would
be unjust or unfair to do so. One of the most well-known cases of licence by estoppel
is the case of Dillwyn v Llewelyn 4. In this case, the defendant had allowed the
claimant to construct and maintain a weir on his land, without any written or express
agreement. When the defendant later objected to the use of the weir, the court held
that the defendant had granted a licence by estoppel, and therefore could not revoke
the claimant's use of the weir. In another case, the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt
v Arnold demonstrated how a licence by estoppel can be created even in the absence
of express words or acts. The claimant was a tenant in a multi-tenanted office
building, which was managed by the defendant. The defendant gave the claimant
permission to install a sign on the outside of the building, and the claimant spent a
significant sum doing so. The defendant later revoked the permission, but the court
held that the claimant had a licence by estoppel to continue to use the sign, as he had
incurred a significant expenditure to install it. In terms of the legal articles, the
doctrine of licence by estoppel is often discussed in the context of property law.
According to the principles of property law, a licence is a permission to use someone
else's property, which can either be express or implied. An express licence is one that
is clearly stated in writing or verbally, while an implied licence is one that arises from
the conduct of the parties involved.

Licences for value. A license for value is a license that is granted in exchange for
payment or some other form of consideration, and creates an interest in the land that is
binding on third parties. The terms of the license agreement will determine the nature
and extent of the licensee's rights, but a license for value generally confers greater
rights than a personal privilege. In reference to the case of Wood v Leadbitter 5(1845)
is a leading case on the subject of licenses for value. In this case, the defendant owned
a piece of land and gave the plaintiff permission to enter the land and take minerals

3 Black’s Law dictionary

4Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862] EWHC Ch J67; 45 ER 1285
5 Wood v Leadbitter
from it in exchange for payment. Later, the defendant tried to revoke the license,
claiming that it was merely a personal privilege and not an interest in the land.

The court held that the license was a license for value, meaning that the plaintiff had
paid for the right to use the land, and therefore had an interest in the land. The court
explained that a license for value creates an interest in the land that is binding on third
parties, and that the licensee is entitled to continue to use the land for the purposes
specified in the license agreement. The court also distinguished between licenses for
value and licenses that are personal privileges. A license for value is a contractual
right that creates an interest in the land, while a personal privilege is merely a
permission that can be revoked at any time.

Licenses and third parties. These refer to situations where the rights of a licensee
under a license agreement are enforced against parties who are not parties to the
original agreement, such as third parties who acquire an interest in the property
subject to the license. There are various legal principles and rules that apply to
licenses and third parties, and these may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the
specific circumstances of the case. The following is a discussion relevant to this topic.

Privity of contract: This is a legal principle that generally holds that only parties to a
contract have rights and obligations under the contract. In the context of licenses, this
means that a licensee may only enforce its rights against the licensor, and not against
third parties. However, there are exceptions to this principle, such as licenses that
create interests in land that are binding on third parties. In Wood v Leadbitter,
6discussed earlier, the court held that a license for value creates an interest in the land
that is binding on third parties.

Doctrine of estoppel: This is a principle that prevents a person from denying a fact or
legal right that they have previously asserted or recognized as true. In the context of
licenses and third parties, estoppel may prevent a licensor from denying the rights of a
licensee to a third party who has relied on the license. This was well portrayed in the
case of Greenland Contractors Ltd v. Bartercard Ltd [2011] 7, the court held that a
licensee had an equitable interest in the property that was protected by the doctrine of
estoppel, even though the licensee did not have a formal interest in the land.

6 Wood v Leadbitter (1845)

7 Greenland Contractors Ltd v. Bartercard Ltd [2011] EWHC 1043 (Ch)
Land Registration Act 2002 (UK). 8This is an example of legislation that sets out
rules for the registration of land in England and Wales. The act includes provisions
that allow licenses to be registered as interests in the land, which may be binding on
third parties who acquire an interest in the property. Section 27 of the Land
Registration Act 2002 provides that a licensee may apply to have their license
registered as an interest in the land, which will then be binding on third parties who
acquire an interest in the property.

License coupled with an interest.

A license coupled with an interest is a license 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.

Such a license is irrevocable whilst the grant remains in existence and may be
assigned, provided it is disposed of with the interest to which it is annexed. Where a
license involves a right to enter and take something that forms part of the land or of
the soil for example minerals, gravel, timber or clay, the grant is a profit priderite. the
right to enter another’s land to take something off the land, such as gravel, sand,
things that grow on the land such as timber and grass. It also entails the right to catch
fish or hunt wild animals on the land. A profit prendre constitutes an interest in land
and it binds subsequent purchasers of the land to which it applies. This principle was
fortified in the case of Settlement Fund Trees V Nurani (1970)9

In contrast, a license to take away goods on the licensor’s land does not constitute an
interest in land. The licensee has a right in the chattel which is on the land, and a
license to enter the land to take away the chattel.

LICENCES AND LEASES

According to Black’s Law dictionary 10, A lease is a contractual agreement between

the landlord and the tenant, which gives the tenant the exclusive right to occupy the
property for a specific period of time, subject to certain conditions. WHILE a license,
on the other hand, is a revocable permission granted by the owner of the property to
use it for a particular purpose.

Differences between Leases and Licences.

8 Land Registration Act 2002 (UK
9 Settlement Fund Trees V Nurani (1970) EA 562
10 Black’s Law dictionary
Exclusive Possession. One of the main differences between a lease and a license is
that a lease grants the tenant exclusive possession of the property, whereas a license
does not. In other words, the tenant has the right to exclude others from the property
during the lease term, while a licensee may have to share the property with others.

Term of Agreement Another significant difference is the length of the agreement. A

lease typically lasts for a fixed period of time, usually for a year or more, while a
license can be for a short-term or even a long-term.

Transfer of Interest. A lease creates an interest in the property and can be assigned
or subleased by the tenant, whereas a license is revocable and cannot be assigned or
subleased.

Rent Payment. Rent is typically paid by a tenant in a lease agreement, whereas a

licensee may pay a fee or other consideration.

Similarities between Leases and Licences.

Legal Rights. Both leases and licenses give the holder certain legal rights over the
property.

Contractual Agreements. Both leases and licenses are contractual agreements

between parties, and they are subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon.

Legal Protections. Both leases and licenses enjoy legal protections under property
law.

In conclusion, licenses are a type of legal agreement that grants a person or entity the
right to use a property for a specific purpose. Licenses are often used in situations
where the owner of the property wants to maintain control over its use, while allowing
others to benefit from its use. Compared to leases, licenses are typically more flexible
and can be for a shorter term. However, licenses are revocable and do not grant the
licensee exclusive possession of the property. Licences have types like bare licences,
licence for value, licence by estoppel among others