The law protects squatters, sometimes to the detriment of property owners:

ACOURT of Appeal judge has suggested that Parliament take another look at the Limitation of Actions Act, specifically its negative effects on property owners whose landholdings are taken over by squatters.

The law, as written, allows persons who occupy land without permission or ownership papers to not only resist efforts to remove them, but to eventually claim the property as their own.

Justice Patrick Brooks sought to highlight the issue after the appeal court upheld a claim in favour of six squatters who built houses on property owned by Peter Perry at 27 Jobs Lane in Spanish Town, St Catherine.

According to the judgment handed down in late March, the occupants of the property – Carol Baugh, Novado Wilson, Ann Marie Hibbert, Elaine Baugh, Sophia Campbell and Anetta Foster – either have a house partly or completely constructed on the land.

Perry acquired the property from former owner Sylvester Hill in December 2014, and continued efforts to evict the squatters, but St Catherine Parish Court Judge Tara Carr ruled in the squatters’ favour in December 2016 after hearing evidence that they had occupied the land for more than 12 years.

They testified that between 1991 and 1998, they reclaimed what was then swampy lands and constructed houses on it.

The court also heard evidence that the owner Hill was in possession of the property during his ownership of it and had mortgaged the premises several times – in 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2006 – to the Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Limited.

The Court of Appeal determined that the six respondents were squatters on Perry’s land, even while noting the former owner appeared to have occupied a house to the front of the premises facing Jobs Lane, while the squatters lived more to the rear, accessing their holdings by way of the Spanish Town Bypass.

Hill tried to evict the squatters, and took legal action against them in court in July 2013. Perry was added as a claimant to the court case after buying the property.

Citing the mortgages, Perry’s lawyer, Shane Dalling, argued that the rightful owner of the property had been in possession of the property, but Justice Brooks noted that under the Limitations Act, it was entirely possible for the respondents to acquire a possessory title – that is, ownership of land by someone who does not hold the deeds to document ownership – despite Hill granting mortgages of the property from time to time.

The bank ought to have investigated whether there was any possessory title or other interest being created which would have affected its interest, the judge noted.

“Unfortunately, there are numerous incidents of squatting in this country. The result of successful resistance by a squatter cannot be but regretted by right thinking people, as, usually, the holder of the paper title had secured it by much effort and sacrifice,” Justice Brooks said.

“The result is not the happiest, bearing in mind that Mr Perry has purchased the premises for a not insignificant sum,” said Brooks in dismissing the appeal. “It is perhaps time for the legislature to consider the matter,” he said.

Perry is weighing whether to appeal the case further at the Privy Council, according to Dalling, his attorney, who says the discussions are ongoing.

The six squatters were represented by attorneys Lilieth Lambie-Thomas and Jamilla Thomas.