(From Federal Supreme Court of the West Indies) A claim was made for possessory title to a strip of land, based upon acts of cultivation, the cutting of timber, wood and grass, fishing and growing rice. The trial judge disallowed the claim to a possessory title. The Federal Supreme Court reversed him. They took the view that the respondents had made what was, for persons of their means and class, normal user of the land.
Held: The precise nature of the acts and rights required to amount to possession varies with the nature of the land and all the circumstances. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The learned judge . . applied his mind correctly to the question whether the respondents had proved ‘sole and undisturbed possession user and enjoyment’ of the disputed strip. As the Federal Supreme Court itself stated, these words convey the same meaning as possession to the exclusion of the true owner. The learned judge gave recognition to the fact that what constitutes possession, adequate to establish a prescriptive claim, may depend upon the physical characteristics of the land. On the other hand, he was, in their Lordships’ view, correct in regarding such acts as cutting timber and grass from time to time as not sufficient to prove the sole possession which is required . . The respondents had, in [the view of the Federal Supreme Court], proved that they had made what was for persons of their means and class normal user of the land . . This does not appear to be a correct approach to the evidence. Admitting the utility of the respondents’ operations, and that they did what was normal for small peasant farmers, this still does not establish a sufficient degree of sole possession and user to satisfy the Ordinance, or carry the matter beyond a user which remains consistent with the possession of the true owner.’
References: [1967] AC 665
Judges: Lord Wilberforce
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Cobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000 (Times 24-Jan-01, , , , [2000] UKPC 49, [2001] 1 WLR 1775)
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . . - Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2010] WLR (D) 195, , [2011] 1 WLR 504)
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.179830
