Squatters’ Rights in Dominica

Squatters’ rights in Dominica rest on the doctrine of adverse possession, allowing individuals to acquire legal entitlement to land they have occupied continuously, openly, and without permission for over 12 years, even if the property is registered under another owner. This legal principle operates under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA), set against the framework of the Title by Registration Act (TRA), which usually guarantees registered title. The conflict between these statutes came to a head in the 2019 CCJ ruling in George v Guye, establishing binding precedent across Dominica and Eastern Caribbean jurisdictions.

Legal Framework and Legislative Background

Dominica’s land law reflects dual statutory regimes. The RPLA stipulates that after 12 years of continuous and undisputed possession, a squatter may claim possessory title, particularly if the true owner fails to object or take legal action. Squatters must prove occupation that is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous, essentially behaving as owner in public view.

Under the TRA, a Certificate of Title generally offers “indefeasible” protection. However, the law provides exceptions, for instance, where the owner’s title has been superseded by prescription under the RPLA. Importantly, the TRA requires squatters to apply under section 33 for formal recognition of their adverse possession claim. Failure to do so historically led courts to reject adverse possession defenses in land disputes.

Although lower courts in Dominica often required strict compliance with the TRA process, the law historically recognized that RPLA rights could exist without registration, creating tension that was only resolved by the CCJ’s later ruling.

George v Guye (2019): The CCJ Landmark Case

In David George v Albert Guye, the dispute involved a narrow strip of land occupied by George for over twelve years, adjacent to his business in Portsmouth, while Guye held registered title from a 1995 grant. When Guye sought to evict him in 2004, George defended based on his long-standing possession under the RPLA, bypassing TRA registration procedures.

Dominica’s High Court and Court of Appeal sided with Guye, citing George’s failure to invoke section 33 of the TRA. They held the certificate of title as indefeasible and upheld Guye’s right to possession. However, on appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice, the majority judgment led by Justice Adrian Saunders overturned these decisions. The CCJ affirmed that a certificate holder is not absolute owner if RPLA rights acquired via adverse possession apply. George’s continuous occupation extinguished Guye’s ability to bring recovery claims, even without a TRA title issued.

The CCJ concluded that historical practice in Dominica supported such interpretation, with the RPLA serving as a recognized statutory basis for possessory title, even in the absence of procedural registration. The majority opinion stressed that allowing landowners to reclaim land after more than twelve years of occupation by another undermines legal equity. Dissenting judges emphasized legal certainty and TRA procedures, arguing the decision could weaken registered security.

Attorney Henry “Babs” Dyer welcomed the ruling as affirming land justice and clarifying ambiguities in Dominican land law. He noted that limiting access to justice for informal occupiers had long denied equitable access to small holders and marginalized groups.

Broader Significance and Continuing Impact

Squatters’ rights jurisprudence is now firmly embedded in Dominica’s legal framework. The CCJ decision reshaped land law interpretation in Eastern Caribbean courts, reaffirming that the passage of time and continuous occupancy can override certificate-based ownership.

This outcome has practical consequences:

• Landowners must remain vigilant, monitor property use, and enforce their rights within the statutory window, or risk losing legal remedies.
• Occupiers, especially the land-poor, may secure tenure rights if they fulfill occupation criteria over 12 years, even absent formal title.
• Legal reform advocates now call for more accessible registration processes under section 33, especially for low-income and rural occupiers unable to afford legal costs.

In addition, the ruling has sparked case law discussions on “tacking” (adding successive periods of possession), estoppel, and shared occupancy. These areas remain evolving in Dominica’s High Court and may be further clarified in follow-up CCJ cases.

From a policy standpoint, Dominica’s recognition of customary and informal land practices, via adverse possession, links property law to poverty alleviation. Informal settlements, community gardens, and low-income housing like Chance housing estate now have a stronger legal footing when occupants meet the statutory timeline.

Future Developments

Land title registration and property reforms are under discussion. Some proposals include: cost waivers for section 33 applications, legal aid for adverse possession claimants, digital tracking of occupancy, and landowner notification obligations to prevent inadvertent deprivation of rights. Regulatory clarity remains essential to avoid unintended loss of titles.

Policies are being explored to ensure certificate holders verify boundaries, land status, and occupants regularly. These reforms aim to avoid future conflicts and uphold legal fairness in rural and urban zones.

It’s also anticipated that other jurisdictions using similar land law, like St. Lucia, Antigua & Barbuda, and St. Vincent, may adopt George v Guye precedent, helping to reform regional understanding of adverse possession.