Land Law-Island appearing in Nile-Ownership-Rights run across the river,
not ups/ream and downstream

The established principle in the Sudan is that rights in the bed of the
Nile run across the river, and do not run upstream and downstream. The
fact that riparian owners can pass dry-shod from their land to a newly
formed island lying upstream from their holdings does not give such own-
ers a rightin derogation of the established principle .

•. Court: Creed C.L

Revision

The registered owners of Sagias 1, 2 and 3 Misiktab Island, the
first defendants, applied for revision of a decree of the Province Court,
Northern Province. The Sudan Government was joined as second de-
fendant.

March 24, 1938. Creed C.J.: This is a-dispute between the reg-
istered owners of Urn Tereifi Island (plaintiffs) and the registered own-
ers of Sagias 1, 2 and 3, Misiktab Island, (first defendants) as to
which of the parties is entitled to that part of an unregistered
island which has formed in the bed of the Nile opposite the island of
Urn Tereifi. As this new land is unregistered, the Sudan Government
was joined as second defendant. The facts of the case are clearly ~t
out in the judgement of the learned judge and are illustrated by the
maps filed in the record of the suit.

In view of the submission of the learned Advocate General at the
hearing of the suit, it is unnecessary for me to concern myself as to
whether the Government has or had at any time any title to this land.
It remains to consider the dispute between the registered owners of Urn
Tereifi Island and the registered owners of sagias 1, 2 and 3, Misiktab
Island.

The learned judge has decided as a fact that neither the plaintiffs
nor the defendants have acquired a title to the land by acquisitive
prescription. Having decided this, he has applied the well-established
principle, which has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts of this
country, that rights in the bed of the Nile run across the river and do
not 'run upstream and downstream.

The defendants in this action admit that the land in dispute lies
upstream of their registered holdings in Misiktab Island-a fact which

, they could not deny-but state that, as at certain seasons of the year
they can pass dry-shod from their property in Misiktab Island to the
new land which has formed upstream, they are for this reason entitled
to the new land which has formed. The learned judge has rightly re-
jected this thesis, controverting as it does a weIl-established principle
which has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts.

The court has wisely declined to attempt to fix on the map the
western boundary of the plaintiffs' rights in the bed of the river. The
question is not in issue in this suit, and any attempt to fix a western
boundary would be of no practical value as the registered owners of