Appellant ordered to demolish structure in land ownership dispute

A man who had started construction on a parcel of land he claimed was his own was last year ordered to demolish the structure and vacate the property after the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that he was not the registered owner.

The appellant, Lloyd Robinson, insisted he bought the land in 1995 and had “lined out” a one-bedroom structure and dropped materials there. However, by his own admission, the materials were stolen before construction began, and he could produce no sale agreement, no receipts, and no evidence of title.

The legal owner, Tadean Miller, had acquired a registered title to the lot in 2018 through a mortgage from the National Housing Trust (NHT) and presented certified documents and a surveyor’s report confirming her ownership of Lot 1085, Porto Bello Heights in the parish of St James.

Robinson, who only began actual construction in 2019, after Miller had received a title, was sued for trespass in the St James Parish Court and ordered to pull down the building and vacate the land. He appealed that ruling but, in a decision handed down by the Court of Appeal on July 25, a three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s ruling, describing Robinson’s claim as “unsubstantiated” and lacking credibility.

“ The appellant was clearly not in factual possession and failed to demonstrate by any evidence that he had the necessary animus possidendi to acquire the disputed property by adverse possession, and thereby had a title greater than that of the respondent,” the judges’ panel of Justices Paulette Williams, Marcia Dunbar-Green, and Georgiana Fraser concluded in the judgment published on Friday. An oral decision was handed down last December.

“ The learned judge, in my view, correctly concluded that the respondent, as paper owner, had the right to possession and was deemed to be in possession,” they added.

“ The appellant’s own evidence undermined his case,” the judges ruled, noting that Robinson admitted the materials were stolen and that he had no physical presence or clear possession of the land for more than 20 years.

The court also highlighted that a 2017 land survey showed no sign of fencing, structures, or occupation – contradicting Robinson’s testimony that he had fenced the property and posted “no trespassing” signs.

Robinson’s attorney, Ann Marie Stewart, argued that the parish court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case, as there was a genuine dispute over title. She claimed that her client had purchased and occupied the land since 1995, and that the matter should have been treated as one of adverse possession, not simple trespass.

ERR IN LAW

She also contended that under Section 96 of the Judicature (Parish Courts) Act, the court needed evidence of the land’s annual value, which the claimant failed to provide. Stewart said the judge erred in law and overlooked key issues that should have placed the matter before a higher court.

Miller’s attorney, Albert Morgan, countered that there was no real dispute over title, as his client held the registered certificate of title, making her ownership indefeasible under the law.

He argued that Robinson provided no proof of purchase or possession and failed to meet the legal threshold for an adverse possession claim. Morgan said the parish court was right to treat the case as trespass, since Robinson was simply an unlawful occupier.

In rejecting the appeal, the Court of Appeal judges found that Lloyd Robinson’s claim lacked credibility and legal merit. They also found his evidence lacking in credibility, stating that he failed to prove continuous or undisturbed possession of the land since his claimed purchase in 1995.

Additionally, they noted that he gave no dates for his alleged activities on the land, such as fencing, planting trees, or placing a “no trespassing” sign. They found his testimony vague and unsupported, especially given that he admitted to spending time overseas and had no evidence of consistent occupation.

“ Having given due consideration to this matter, I found that the grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant were unmeritorious, and the learned judge’s ruling as to ownership and possession could not be successfully challenged. Accordingly, there was no merit in this appeal,” they added.

Consequently Robinson was ordered to remove the house by January 31, 2025, and pay $100,000 in appeal costs to Miller. A stay of execution that had temporarily blocked enforcement of the earlier ruling was also discharged.

However, The Gleaner understands that the house has not yet been demolished as the two parties are currently in talks around the possibility of selling the land to Robinson.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com