Keith Rolle and another v Raymond Meadows (The Bahamas)

Adverse possession may defeat an action to recover land in the Bahamas, including land within the Freeport Port Area. The Hawksbill Creek Acts, applicable regulations and ordinary restrictive covenants do not exclude or waive that operation unless they do so expressly or by necessary implication. A defendant may rely on adverse possession under section 16(3) of the Limitation Act 1995 without first obtaining a certificate under the Quieting Titles Act 1959. Once the prescribed period expires, title vests by operation of section 25(1). The Privy Council will rarely review concurrent factual findings on a second appeal.

The Rolles owned land adjoining land later purchased by Mr Meadows. A fence and paved roadway constructed by the Rolles occupied part of the Meadows Property. Mr Meadows brought proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking possession and related relief.

The Supreme Court ordered delivery up of the land, removal of the erections and an injunction restraining entry. It held, among other things, that adverse possession was unavailable in a trespass claim and that the limitation period had been interrupted before proceedings began. The Court of Appeal allowed the Rolles’ appeal, holding that adverse possession was available, that the 12-year period had expired before the writ was issued, and that neither the restrictive covenants nor the Port Area legislation and regulations prevented reliance on the defence. The central issues before the Privy Council concerned those legal questions and the factual commencement of possession.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Board advised His Majesty accordingly. The Rolles’ adverse possession defeated Mr Meadows’ claim for recovery of the Disputed Land.
2. The Hawksbill Creek Acts and the regulations governing the Port Area give the Grand Bahama Port Authority administration and control analogous to local-government powers. They do not disapply general Bahamian law. The Limitation Act 1995 and common-law principles of adverse possession apply to Port Area land unless expressly or necessarily excluded. No such exclusion appeared in the legislation or regulations.
3. The restrictive covenants regulating reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining property and compliance with planning and building codes did not constitute a contractual waiver of the right to acquire possessory title by adverse possession. Such a construction would prevent any trespasser from acquiring title, however long and exclusive the possession.
4. Under sections 16(3) and 25(1) of the Limitation Act 1995, an action to recover land is barred after 12 years and the owner’s estate or interest vests in the person then in adverse possession. That vesting operates by law. A defendant need not first petition under the Quieting Titles Act 1959 or obtain declaratory relief. Requiring that procedure first would negate section 16(3) as a defence to an action for recovery.
5. The lower courts made concurrent findings that the Rolles were in possession by 18 March 2005. By the issue of the writ on 3 July 2017, the 12-year period had expired. The Board’s settled practice is not to review concurrent findings of fact on a second appeal except in exceptional and very limited circumstances, and that threshold was not met.

• Privy Council: Appeal dismissed: [2025] UKPC 25.
• Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas: On 31 May 2021, the Rolles’ appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court’s orders were set aside and Mr Meadows’ cross-appeal was dismissed.
• Supreme Court of The Bahamas: On 29 September 2020, Hanna-Adderley J ordered delivery up of vacant possession, removal of the erections and an injunction restraining entry.