Francis Chitolie and another v Saint Lucia National Housing Corporation (Saint Lucia)

Under Saint Lucia’s Torrens scheme, a person with an accrued title by prescription, or in the process of acquiring one, before first registration had to claim it during the land adjudication process. If no claim was made, and the statutory safety-net was not engaged, pre-registration possession could not later be added to the prescriptive period or asserted against the registered proprietor. Section 28(f) of the Land Registration Act 1984 protects rights in process of acquisition by prescription where possession begins after first registration. It does not preserve earlier unclaimed possession. The notice and claim provisions are clear and support the objective of a definitive register. Decisions under different Torrens legislation must be treated with caution.

The National Development Corporation obtained first registration of the disputed land on 23 June 1987 and later transferred it to the respondent, whose title was registered on 31 July 2008. The appellants had not claimed the land during the Land Registration and Titling Project. They defended the respondent’s 2009 trespass claim and counterclaimed for ownership based on possession said to have begun by 1976.

The High Court, in a judgment delivered on 16 July 2020, found for the respondent. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Lucia) dismissed the appellants’ appeal. The central question before the Board was whether possession occurring before first registration could count towards prescription and constitute an overriding interest under section 28(f) of the Land Registration Act 1984. A subsidiary issue concerned the Land Registrar’s jurisdiction, which the Board left undecided.

The Board dismissed the appeal and advised His Majesty accordingly.

1. The Land Adjudication Act 1984 and Land Registration Act 1984 formed a clear, coherent and comprehensive scheme. Sections 6(1)(c) and 8(1) of the former Act required a person claiming an interest in land to make a claim during the adjudication process. The definition of interest in land in section 2 included rights capable of being recorded. The safety-net in section 9(1) was discretionary and had to be exercised consistently with the legislative purpose.
2. A person with less than 30 years’ relevant possession before first registration was in the process of acquiring title by prescription. That interest could be recorded as provisional title under sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1)(d) of the Land Adjudication Act 1984, with the date possession began. If claimed and recorded, the earlier period counted towards the required period and the provisional title could later be converted into absolute title. If no claim was made, the person could not rely on the pre-registration possession after another person was registered.
3. Section 28(f) of the Land Registration Act 1984 recognised rights in process of being acquired by prescription as overriding interests once the system was operating. It did not remove the obligation to claim rights arising before first registration, nor preserve unclaimed pre-registration possession.
4. This construction advanced the purpose of producing a definitive and comprehensive register. The contrary interpretation would produce the absurd result that a person without an accrued title could be better protected than a person with absolute documentary or prescriptive title who failed to claim it.
5. The Board applied the caution in Arthur v Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands [2012] UKPC 30. Torrens systems differ, so decisions under other legislation could not simply be transferred to Saint Lucia. Graham-Davis v Charles [1994] 2 WLUK 392; 43 WIR 188 and George v Guye [2019] CCJ 19 (AJ) were distinguishable because the relevant legislation was materially different.
6. The principle of legality recognised in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 did not assist the appellants. The scheme contained clear words, notice provisions and a discretionary safety-net. It was not compulsory acquisition without compensation.

The Board did not determine whether the Land Registrar or a court had jurisdiction to decide whether title had been acquired by prescription.

• Privy Council: Appeal dismissed and His Majesty advised accordingly, [2023] UKPC 43.
• Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Lucia): Appeal dismissed.
• High Court: In a judgment delivered on 16 July 2020, the respondent’s trespass claim succeeded, the counterclaim failed, and an injunction and damages were awarded.