CCJ upholds squatter’s rights in Dominica land dispute

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has quashed the decision of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court to give way to the rights of a person who had occupied a piece of land for more than 12 years.

The judgment was handed down today Thursday.

This Appellate Jurisdiction matter involved a dispute, between David George and Albert Guye, over a strip of land in Dominica.

The appellant, George, was the occupier of the strip of land for over 12 years.

However, that strip formed part of a larger parcel of land of which the respondent, Guye, became the registered owner in 1995.

Although Guye was issued a certificate of title under the Title by Registration Act (TRA) in 1995, it was not until 2007 that he filed a claim to regain possession of the disputed strip of land.

George argued that his long and continuous possession of the strip had extinguished Guye’s title.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr. George and held that under the TRA, Guye’s registered title could not be challenged unless Mr. George had complied with the procedural steps outlined in section 33 of the TRA.

The lower courts held that Mr. George, having not triggered Section 33, could not now succeed against the claim of Guye.

The CCJ, by a majority judgment delivered by the Court President, Justice Adrian Saunders, disagreed with the lower courts and allowed George’s appeal.

The majority noted that indefeasibility of a Certificate of Title in Dominica was not absolute and that the TRA expressly provided for two exceptions to such indefeasibility; the one relevant to this appeal being where the title of the registered proprietor had been superseded by a title acquired under the RPLA.

The majority stated that the RPLA conferred certain “squatter’s rights” on someone who has been in occupation of land for over 12 years.

The majority took the view that the law barred even a registered landowner who allowed someone to squat on his land for a continuous period in excess of 12 years, from bringing an action in court to recover the land from the squatter.

The majority was also of the view that this interpretation of the law was in line with cases coming out of Dominica over many years.

Accordingly, the majority held that George was entitled to successfully defend the claim for possession brought by Mr Guye.

Justices Anderson and Burgess, however, in minority opinions, noted that the critical issue was to determine the circumstances in which the title of the registered owner can be superseded.

Justice Anderson expressed that the introduction of the TRA was to provide stability and security of title and overrode the earlier “squatter’s rights” legislation where there is a conflict between the two.

It was for this reason that the certificate of title could not be challenged and anyone seeking to use their long-standing possession as a defense had to first comply with the procedure laid down in section 33.

Justice Burgess based on a strict interpretation of the RPLA and the TRA reached a similar conclusion.

The CCJ, by a majority, allowed Mr. George’s appeal.

The full judgment of the Court and a judgment summary are available on the Court’s website at www.ccj.org.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com/Duravision Inc. All comments are approved by DominicaNewsOnline.com before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • are abusive, profane or offensive
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-message

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

4 Comments

  1. Leslie Woodley
    November 29, 2019

    Who inherits the land when the squatter dies?
    Can the original owner reclaim it?

  2. zandoli
    November 29, 2019

    I don’t understand how a country can allow people to occupy property that does not belong to them and then have the audacity to fight the case in court. That to me encourages theft of other people’s possessions.

    As far as I am concerned, no one has to right to take that which does not belong to them. This is particularly the case for property owners who reside overseas and may not even know their property is being occupied by a squatter. What if I buy a parcel of land in Pond Case for the purpose of building a house later in life. Having no immediate intention to build, I might choose not to visit the land. Then 15 years later, I decide it was time to build only to find a person occupying my land illegally. Now it is up to me to fight it and then the courts turn around and hands over my land to a squatter?

    What societal purpose does that law serve anyway?

    • Anon
      December 2, 2019

      DA is not an island that you can buy land or a residence on and then not come back for an extended length of time. I was told that if someone squats on your land for 4 yrs. and you don’t do anything about it and are absent, they can then become the owner without even paying for it. You have to have someone overseeing your property while you are not present and make sure that the arrangement is clear.

  3. Arri Mayers
    November 28, 2019

    Let us wait and see how this ruling transpires across the Caribbean.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available