Mcgregor

Complaints about squatters often attract widespread media coverage. In many cases, however, the squatters take steps to legitimise occupation of the land by applying for the title after they have been in possession of the land for at least 12 years.

On April 17, 2007, the Privy Council ruled in favour of the former custos of St. Mary, Mr. A. A. Pottinger, in a case which challenged his ownership of 34 lots of land in St. Mary. The case explored the law which permits squatters to regularise their occupation of lands under the Registration of Titles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Privy Council's ruling

The Privy Council's ruling demonstrates the fact that squatters are able to acquire legitimate titles to the property which they occupy, once they have satisfied the criteria outlined in the act for them to do so. The case also shows that once these titles have been acquired, there are very limited circumstances in which they can be challenged.

The story behind the Pottinger case started when Gibraltar Estates Limited became the owner of several lots of land between 1956 and 1959. Pottinger had purchased one of the lots from Gibraltar in 1970, on which he built his house and resided. In 1975, he then took possession of 34 of the unsold lots. He bushed them and paid all the property taxes.

In 1986, Ms. Raffone negotiated the purchase of 43 of the said lots, signed an agreement and paid US$5,000 to Gibraltar's director, Mr. Sugarman. However, there was no evidence that the lots were never transferred or that the full purchase price had been paid. In fact, she lived in New York and visited Jamaica only twice a year.

In 1992, Mr. Pottinger applied to the Registrar of Titles to have certificates of title for the 34 lots issued in his name. He declared that he had been in possession of the lots for more than 12 years without being disturbed or challenged by anyone and was unable to locate or contact the owners. In this way, he was able to obtain registered titles from the Registrar of Titles for all the lots in 1993.

After the titles were issued, Ms. Raffone sued Mr. Pottinger and the Registrar of Titles claiming that Mr. Pottinger had committed fraud when he made the application for the titles. When the matter was first heard, the Supreme Court ruled against Ms. Raffone by stating that the agreement which she signed in 1986 was unenforceable. The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and found that Pottinger had wrongfully obtained the titles to the lots.

The Privy Council viewed the matter differently from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The law lords held that, because Mr. Pottinger had satisfied all the criteria under the Registration of Titles Act in applying for title to the lots, the only way his rights could be challenged was by showing that he had committed fraud. They said that that there was no such evidence.