George v Guye (2019, CCJ)

In David George v Albert Guye, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) reshaped Dominica’s land law by affirming that continuous occupation for over 12 years under the RPLA may defeat even a registered Certificate of Title under the TRA. The case marked a seismic shift in how squatters’ rights and legal ownership are adjudicated in Dominica and the wider region.

Background and Legal Conflict

David George had continuously occupied a narrow strip of land beside his tire business in Portsmouth while Albert Guye legally owned the larger parcel containing it, through a Certificate of Title dated 1995. In 2007 Guye sued to reclaim that strip. Lower courts in Dominica sided with Guye, reasoning that George failed to comply with section 33 of the TRA, thus invalidating his adverse possession claim despite his long-term occupancy.

However, on appeal, the CCJ ruled in George’s favor. In a majority opinion by President Justice Adrian Saunders, the court held that a registered title is not absolute, and one of the two statutory exceptions includes a title acquired under the RPLA. Accordingly, George’s uninterrupted, open, and exclusive occupation extinguished Guye’s title, even though he hadn’t applied under section 33.

Court Rationale and Dissenting Views

The majority viewed the RPLA as a statutory limit on an owner’s ability to reclaim land after 12 years of adverse possession, even where TRA procedures were not followed. It emphasized that the statutory scheme should prevent landowners from regaining possession after allowing such long-term occupation. Justice Saunders further noted that longstanding Dominican practice supported this interpretation.

In dissent, Justices Anderson and Burgess argued section 33 of the TRA was intended to preserve the  indefeasibility of registered titles unless formal adversarial registration procedures were complied with. Failing those steps, they contended, should render the adverse possessor ineligible to defeat title.

Legal Legacy and Regional Impact

This CCJ judgment firmly recognized that RPLA-based prescription outweighs TRA title, even without formal register-based assertion. It sets binding precedent across all ECCJ jurisdictions where similar statutes apply. Landowners now bear legal responsibility to monitor property, and take action before the 12‑year occupancy window closes. Occupiers, particularly in informal or rural zones, have clearer grounds to assert legal rights based on long-term possession.

The ruling also catalyzed calls for reform, such as streamlining section 33 registration, waiving fees, and legal aid for low-income residents asserting adverse possession in rural and peri-urban communities across Dominica and neighboring states.