A matter of law
JUSTICE PATRICK Brooks, in calling for the legislature to rethink the Limitation of Actions Act, has rekindled the long-running national conversation about squatters’ rights versus landowners’ rights.
His remarks were made in relation to the case of six St Catherine squatters who argued that between 1991 and 1998, they reclaimed swamp land and built houses on the land. The owner of the land initiated eviction proceedings five years ago. The owner, however, has lost his bid to recover the land.
“The result is not the happiest,” said the judge, adding that the owner had purchased the land for a significant sum.
If we read Justice Brooks correctly, he appears to be interested in a rebalance of the interest of landowners as against squatters.
Squatting is a major problem in this country. The point was reinforced by the judge when he said: “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.”
Unoccupied land or an unoccupied home may suffer the same fate, for persons will boldly move on to the land or take up residence without reference to, or permission from, the legal owners. So over time, a trespasser can be successfully transformed into an owner not by paying any compensation, but by becoming owner.
It is estimated that about 20 per cent of the population does not legally own the land on which they live. Some are squatting on government land and others on privately held property. If the squatter is allowed to remain on privately owned land undisturbed for a 12-year period, he could end up displacing the rightful owner. It’s known in law as adverse possession.
The passions aroused during disputes involving adverse possession confirm that this is an emotional issue. On the one hand, there is the landowner or homeowner who usually feels cheated out of property that rightly belongs to him, while a rush of vicarious rage emanates from the landless, who invariably argue that landowners are unconscionable and unfair to want to remove them from land they have occupied for decades.
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
Squatting has great social connotations. In a country where the majority has been landless, the ambition to own a piece of land is overwhelming. Therefore, idle land becomes a target for those who understand how they can use the doctrine of adverse possession to find land.
The evidence shows that eviction procedures are often squatter-friendly, with assorted politicians being pressed into interceding on behalf of constituents. In these matters, there is usually a heavy financial and emotional cost to the true owners. For one thing, the act of trying to remove squatters is likely to be a lengthy and costly court battle.
Taking a wide-lens view of the issue of adverse possession, which is rooted in English law, the onus appears to be on the landowner to exercise ownership rights as the legislature may be reluctant to effect change.
So the landowner is urged to be vigilant, be proactive by erecting ‘no trespassing’ signs and making periodic checks to ensure that no one is occupying his land or charging a peppercorn rent to establish ownership. There are many other instances like the St Catherine case cited above.