“If property is indeed a relationship of socially approved control over a valued resource, it has become quite clear that in the Britain of the 21st century, adverse possession of land is a form of control which is no longer socially approved.”[1]
The crux of property law of almost every legal system is adverse possession, a doctrine which literally transfers land from its owners to non-owners who entered the land unlawfully. Put differently, the doctrine ensures that there is a transfer of state-sanctioned rights in land from owners to non-owners without the consent of the owners.[2] Perceived as a concept which undermines legal rules, “ailing” and offends common sense, commentators have not the least restrained themselves from being overly critical with their assessment. The irony of it all is that adverse possession has existed for more than four millenniums[3] and keeps showing no signs of weariness, as it continues to occupy space in law school curriculum and legal practice.[4]
Unpretentiously, the main reason for the surprised survival of the concept is the theoretical notion of necessity which permits the shifting of property from those who do not use it (i.e. the property’s absentee owner) to those who do (i.e. the land’s actual occupier), thereby promoting efficient use of land, for the fulfillment of the primary goal of property law.[5]So important is this objective that Posner and Holmes[6] could hardly suppress their proclivities towards adverse possession that it improves rather than challenges the system of property rights. “If we had no doctrine of adverse possession, we should have to invent something very like it,” Stoebuck and Whitman[7] opine. As interesting as it may seem, the proponents of the concept have said more than we could ever imagine in their epistemological challenge.
In this paper, the rationale underlying the popularity of the concept has been sufficiently interrogated and pitched against the arguments often adduced by the adversaries of the concept. While the previous publication on the concept focused principally on its legality, the current piece revolves around the moral quandary; based upon religious, customary, social and ethical values to campaign for the reformation of the concept in Ghana.
The Early Development of the Concept of Adverse Possession
At the early years of the doctrine in ancient Rome, adverse possession was recognized in the forms of usucapio and longi temporis praescriptio.[8] By these principles, the law required the trespasser seeking to acquire title over a land he occupied to demonstrate:
- That possession of the land had in the first instance been taken bona fide. (In that respect, forceful “land-stealing” could not give a trespasser title) and
- That there was a justa causa for the taking of possession – a purchaser or a gift from someone wrongly believed to be the true owner or by a method of transfer mistakenly believed to be effective.
An original taker of land, even if non-violent, could not acquire title by way of adverse possession, because he was not bona fide, knowing the land not to be his own, but a purchaser from him who had justa causa could acquire title.[9]
When the doctrine later found its way into the English law, the fundamental idea of prohibiting acquisition of title to registered land by adverse possession was briefly maintained. Traditionally at common law, it was not possible to obtain title to the property of the Crown by means of adverse possession. This principle was embodied by the Latin maxim “nullum tempus occurrit regis” (“no time runs against the king”). However, with the passage of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, section 12 allowed acquisitions and gave the rights, inchoate or perfected, of a squatter on registered land the status of an “overriding interest’, so that they prevailed against a purchaser.
Modern Approach to the Concept
Recognizing the “immoral tag” usually put on the principle, most common law and civil law jurisdictions have revised their laws to improve the system of mere possession to a vigorous regime of estates and titles.[10] Their push towards a registration system was intended to secure the title of the registered proprietor of land, so as to make his ownership double sure and noticeable to the rest of society.[11]
It has further been observed that, some jurisdictions have drawn a sharp line between adverse possessors who entered land in good faith and those who possessed it in bad faith. Good-faith possessors are usually in possession of another’s land by virtue of a mistaken belief in the legality of a void or defective title, which leads them to think that the land in question is theirs. On the other hand, bad-faith possessors are generally regarded as scoundrels; occupying lands they know are not theirs.[12]
It may be reiterated that good faith was a major requirement for an adverse possessor to prove in order to claim land under ancient Roman law and it continues to be a cardinal feature in modern civil law systems.[13] In most jurisdictions such as Maine-US, where the intent of the possessor is relevant, the law rarely awards title to the mala fide encroacher, with the opposite being true of bonafide occupiers.[14] In other civil law jurisdictions, such as Poland, Greece and Jordan, although both good faith and bad faith possessors are entitled to be registered as owners of land, the former enjoy shorter prescriptive limitation period than the latter.[15] In Poland for example, the limitation statute prescribes twenty years for good faith possessors and thirty years for bad faith possessors.
We are told that England and common law jurisdictions generally do not distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith possessors.[16] James L.J. once remarked about the English law thus: “It must always be borne in mind that in all such questions under the Statute of Limitations this court has nothing to do with the nature, origin, or duration of the Defendant’s possession, but simply whether or not the Plaintiff has or has not proceeded in due time after the accrual … of his right of suit.’[17]
Similarly, in his commentary on the subject, Goodman postulated thus: ‘Indeed, it is distinctly possible that English law is the exact opposite of Roman law. Deliberate land-stealing, can in English law give rise to adverse possession whereas possession taken bona fide and with a justa causa may well not be “adverse.”
Is Adverse Possession the only Property Law Concept that Gives Title to Another Without the Owner’s Consent?
While adverse possession has been severely criticized for centuries, it may seem that it is the only land law concept which forcibly takes away one’s land and gives the title to another, but that is not the case; it is a palpable misconception. In eminent domain or compulsory acquisition, an owner of land also loses the land without the owner’s consent. What is significantly peculiar to adverse possession and eminent domain is the fact that in both cases, the land is lost by the owner due to a state policy or legislation.
Beyond that, there are clear distinctions. While in the case of eminent domain or compulsory acquisition, it is the state alone that benefits from the acquisition, with adverse possession, any individual, stranger or entity can become a beneficiary of another person’s land. There is also no need to establish long occupation in the case of eminent domain or compulsory acquisition, as required for adverse possession. Finally, a person who loses his land as a result of eminent domain or compulsory acquisition is adequately compensated by the state, but no such compensation is paid in respect of adverse possession.
Rationalizing the Concept of Adverse Possession
Katz Larrisa[18] argues that the analogy of adverse possessors to land thieves is misleading. In a post by Minkah Premo & Associates in 2015[19] on the topic, “The Effects of Adverse Possession” in defence of the concept, the writer gave this scenario: A land owner in 1980 used his piece of land for vegetable farming. In 1990, the squatter noticing that the piece of land was no longer being cultivated, decided to cultivate cabbage on the same piece of land. The owner of the land did not object to this development. The squatter continued to use the land until he died twelve years after and [his] wife also continued to use the land. Four years later, the squatter’s wife purported to will the piece of land to her niece. When the wife died in 2007, her niece built a house on the land and let it out to a foreign investor.
The issue that arose was who was the “better owner” of the land? Should the law overlook the development on the land coupled with the innocence of the foreign investor and allow the true owner to recover his land? It is such apparent injustice that the law of adverse possession intervenes to shut the door on the face of the true owner.
The concept has been justified by legal commentators on various grounds.
- John Locke,[20] in his Second Treatise on Government argues that the interest of a squatter who has improved the property through concerted labour (as in the scenario above) must have an overriding interest in it over an owner who has abandoned the land.
- Adverse possession is part of the general body of laws known as the statute of limitations, which protects individuals against “stale” claims. This is because the law does not want anyone to walk around paranoid about being sued of something that happened several decades ago. It therefore establishes time limits for the claim to be made.[21]
- Adverse possession settles disputed land titles where official documents do not match reality.
- With adverse possession, land owners are made responsible for the protection of their lands as part of their social responsibilities. The doctrine thus, encourages land owners to be vigilant and proactive in managing their properties.
- Adverse possession provides an avenue for a trespasser to put land to productive use and potentially claim the land as theirs. If land is not maintained, it can become a nuisance and lowers the value of the properties surrounding it. In this way, absentee owners infringe on the rights of others.
- The concept is defended on the Personhood Theory, which provides emotive underlining for the right to respect for the home. The theory recognizes that a squatter in possession of land, after a certain period, forms a personal attachment to the land than the true owner.
- Ancient Romans believed that land had a spirit that had to be nurtured and cared for by the person using it, hence the concept has been immortalized by the saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law.[22] The responsibility abandoned by the real owner in constantly energizing the spirits on the land is thus assumed by the adverse possessor.
- The concept ensures that land does not fall into disuse.
- The concept finds economic justification in the fact that it translates into a significant reduction in evidence costs,[23] search costs, verification costs, publication costs which are all saved at registration.
- Adverse possession confers rights on squatters, serving as a compassionate nod to the plight of the poor and homeless.
- In jurisdictions which levy property taxes, if land is abandoned, the state may acquire the right to sell the property for non-payment of taxes. The presence of the squatter on the land could prevent that occurrence.
- Some scholars, such as Paul Gales, take a negative view of absentee land ownership, claiming that they slowed the development of the community, kept land out of the hands of actual settlers, distorted farmers’ decisions, and reduced tax revenues that increased the tax burden on actual settlers.[24]
- According to Locke, the property one can claim should be limited to the area that can be used in a beneficial way in order not to go waste.[25] John Stuart[26] makes similar claims in his 1848 Principles of Political Economy. He noted that exclusive property rights in land should be dependent on the actual use of the land for the production of goods, and that unused land cannot be considered as private property.[27] He believes that possession ought to be recognized as ownership, if it has not been challenged for a moderate number of years, noting that: “[r]evival of a claim which had long been dormant, would generally be a greater injustice, and almost always cause a greater private and public mischief, than leaving the original wrong without atonement.”
- The traditional perception that squatters are generally criminals who take advantage of neglected lands has been debunked by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities[28] indicates that many squatters rather contribute to the local economies,[29] adding: “[t]here are times when squatters and squatters’ movements must be recognized for their noble and courageous efforts in developing efficient use of property and alleviating one of social ills.”
- It has been argued that land is for all human beings and not for some few. Its earlier discovery or acquisition by the owner does not perpetually prohibit others from its use. Henry George[30] philosophically states: “The equal right of all men to use land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air… For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world and others have no right.”[31]
- Emerich[32] defended the prescription of claim theory thus: “If a man does not think more of his claim than to allow it to grow stale, he shall not have the state’s aid to enforce it, the prescription is in the nature of a penalty for his indifference; there must be an end to litigation. But acquisitive prescription is founded upon the economic conception that all things should be used according to their nature and purpose. The man so using a thing, and using and preserving it for a certain length of time, has done a work beneficial to the community. He deserves well of the state, and his reward is the conferring upon him of the title to the thing used.”
- More than a century ago, Sarbah[33] noted that there was no virgin or ownerless land in the Gold Coast. Later scholars such as Danquah,[34] Ollenu[35] and Bentsi-Enchill[36] reechoed the point. As at 1960, Ghana’s population was below 7million, but has now significantly leaped to almost 35 million.[37] There is therefore pressure on the limited land in the country generally and it may not be fair to encourage land owners to abandon their lands, while a vast majority of the population has no place to occupy as their abode.
Arguments Canvassed Against Adverse Possession
In previous articles, the woes of the concept were amply articulated and would need no repetition, except to hammer on the few core ones at this stage.
- It has been argued that the law appears to reward the wrongdoer at the expense of the innocent. The doctrine is emotionally upsetting due to the strong sentiments some people attach to their lands. Stripping their lands from them is viewed as nothing less than taking their whole being. Landowners who are unaware of the concept may feel blindsided and betrayed by such laws.[38]
- The doctrine defies the expectations for the role of the law. Most people see law as protecting property rights, and cannot understand why the same law helps another to dispossess them of their properties – thus incentivizing thieves.[39] One writer rhetorically asked, “what is the justification for depriving a man of his rights, a pure evil as far as it goes, in consequence of the lapse of time?”[40]
- Adverse possession has become more of a threat to certainty of title than a support of it. The doctrine diminishes reliance that may be placed on documents or records.
- Land ownership is viewed as an indicator of material wealth, identity, social standing and financial security. The concept represents a direct attack on these constructs.[41]
- The notion that the exploitation of land through cultivation or real estate accords with the highest and best use is antediluvian. The realities of climate change, water scarcity, energy crises and extinction of certain animals are kicking up the agenda of natural conservation at the top of the “highest-use” ladder.[42] An American writer argues that the preservation of land in its natural and unused state could portend greater benefits in today’s world than its reckless development.[43]
- The rationalization of the concept that it forms part of the general framework of limitations of actions to bar stale claims has been dismissed as “unconvincing”, since the concept does not only operate to bar claims, but also confers title on the squatter.[44]
- The shift in society from agrarian to industrial and service grounded economies is seen as a demonstration in the changing nature of land use.[45]
- Some scholars have argued that if an interruption in the occupation of a land by a squatter restarts the count, then the concept is not much focused on land use as it does to mere presence or occupation.[46]
Beyond the above theoretical reasons proffered against the doctrine, Biblical and Islamic teachings as well as social and customary beliefs ostensibly tend to weaken the “values” of adverse possession.
How the Bible Contributes to the Issue
God, from the onset, made his intentions against the concept clearly in the last of the Ten Commandments at Exodus 20. 17 thus: “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house …” In effect, we are not to take our neighbour’s property as ours because God is not in support of that.
Jeremiah in his book, explains that a person who broods or “feasts” on properties belonging to others does not benefit from it in the end. In Chapter 17 verse 11, the prophet cautioned thus: “Like a cowbird that cheats by laying its eggs in another bird’s nest is the person who gets rich by cheating. When the egg hatches, the deceit is exposed. What a fool he’ll look like then!”
What the prophet sought to say was that a person who unlawfully trespasses on another person’s land or property and develops it will become a fool and the loser in the end, because he cannot benefit from his “misdeeds”. Therefore, the concept of adverse possession which enables a person who had unlawfully taken another person’s property to become the eventual owner does not accord with the prophet’s teachings. Prophet Micah’s message in Chapter 2 verse 2 of his book was an equally powerful jeremiad against the concept. “They covet fields and then seize them, and houses, and take them away. They deprive a man of his home, a fellow of his inheritance,” Micah claimed.
In 1 Kings 21, verses 18 and 19 indicate that God was not only angry with Ahab because he had used his position to kill Naboth, but also because he dispossessed him of his land and took possession. This actually underscores that any system put in place by the state to dispossess a landowner from the use of his property for another to benefit is loathsome to God.
In the New Testament, Jesus hit the nail in the coffin with his parable on the issue in Matthew 13:44 thus: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.” From this verse, we are taught how to legitimately acquire property – by expending resources to purchase it from the owner and not to use the back door to acquire it, as the adverse possessor does. Once land belongs to a person, does he not have the right to decide how he would want to treat it? It is of little wonder that Jesus posed a similar question in Matthew 20:15a thus: “Have I not a right to do what I choose with my own property?[47]
Islamic Perspective
In Islam, adverse possession is called “Ghasb” and it is haram, which meant forbidden or proscribed. According to Islamic teachings, Allah says: “And eat up not one another’s property unjustly (in any illegal way, e.g. stealing, robbing, deceiving).”[48]
In Aapke Masa’ail aur unke Hal’[49] “to usurp a property or a land without the consent of the owner, is a grave sin in Islam.” In Hadith, the Prophet mentioned, “Whoever seizes a hand span of land unlawfully, will surround him to the depth of the seven earths.”[50] The Sharia Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for example, has declared the concept of adverse possession, as contained in section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as unjust and un-Islamic.[51]
Customary Insight
The African naturally loves proverbs and uses them to communicate and express his feelings. We can therefore infer from some of their proverbs to appreciate customary perceptions about adverse possession.
According to our elders, “If a dog says it will not eat its food, it is no license for the fowl to take it away.” This literally means, the mere abandonment of land by a person does not entitle a stranger to occupy and use it. The proverb is similar to one Akan proverb which says: “It is the owner of a thing who eats it and not the hungry one.” The exclusivity of a person’s ownership in property is notoriously recognized under customary law, as depicted from the proverb that, “I am the owner of a property and we are owners of the property are not the same.”
Western Notion
The idiom “An English man’s home is his castle” was coined by Sir Edward Coker in 1604 in a common law decision[52] to signify that a person’s home is his place of privacy and security, where they have the right to do as they please and be free from unwanted interference. “Home” in the context may mean “land”.
Antipathy For the Land Owner
While the moral arguments appear to weigh heavily against the adverse possessor, the land owner is not completely shielded. Undeniably, his neglect of the land emboldened the adverse possessor to take possession. According to Professor Kirkland Miller and Maureen Milliron,[53] some scholars[54] “demonize the true owner because the true owner is committing the morally wrong’ act of allowing the adverse possessor to become dependent on an interest in land’ and then taking it away”. In the words of Paul Lucas,[55] “[a]ny owner of property who lost his estate to another man by operation of prescription was either presumed to have abandoned his property or deemed to be worthy of punishment for having neglected his own rights.” Our elders say that while we are quick to chastise the cat, the rat must equally be scolded. We examine this view from the biblical, customary and western standpoints.
Biblical Perspective: While the Bible condemns the acts of the adverse possessor, it subtly rebukes the true owner for his long abandonment of the land if he really values it. Jesus, in Matthew 6:21 said: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart also be.” By this, the Lord meant that no diligent land owner interested in his land would neglect it for too long without attending to it.
Customary Perspective: “Konongo Kaya’ – Konongo Kaya is a Twi phrase which literally refers to someone who would not act, but would not step aside for others to act. The term denotes the selfish nature of the landowner who would not develop or use the land, but would not allow another (the adverse possessor) interested in using the land to do so.
Its western equivalent is: “A dog in the manger” which refers to a person who spitefully refuses to let someone benefit from a thing for which he or she has no personal use.
The phrase “An English man’s home is his castle” in modern times is cited to back the adverse possessor. If a homeless squatter finds a home in an abandoned property and made it an abode for many years to establish a home, it becomes his “castle’ as against the title holder who abandoned the property to fall into disuse. Oliver Wendell Holmes is reputed to have said: “A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or an opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it.”[56] .
Conclusion
This paper has given a fair and balanced analysis of the underlining philosophy behind the concept of adverse possession. Conceivably, many a reader who hitherto developed cold shoulder towards the concept prior to reading this piece might have revised their notes.
It must however be noted that the efficient land systems adopted in most jurisdictions in contemporary times have “paralyzed” the arguments of those who rationalized adverse possession in the past, since the concept was birthed at a time ownership of land depended largely on possession. One commentator[57] recently theorized: “But how can acquisitive prescription be justified in modern times? Adverse possession may have been efficient in pre-modern times, but in the twenty-first century – the age of GPS, block-chain, Google Earth, etc. – acquisitive prescription must be justified, if possible, on new grounds.” Professor Una Woods,[58] in strenuously defending adverse possession that it is not a “relic” or an “ailing concept,” was quick to add that, reform was overdue. In order for adverse possession to remain useful, Jennifer Hiatt and Jonathan Hladik similarly suggest that it be modernized to fit in today’s society.[59]
Michael Lubetsky, on his part, predicted that adverse possession will die a natural death once states completely implement the Torrens Title System.[60] Therefore, Ghana, after putting in place such a framework (including an innovative electronic registration system), with the assurance of indefeasibility of title given to the general public, it is diffciult to comprehend why the concept continues to fill the pages of our statute books in modern times. The constitutional guarantee of the right of a person to own property without interference,[61] further brings into question the lucidness of the antiquated concept. It is pathetic that under the cloak of the law, the concept on daily basis, back-stabs legitimate landowners in our courtrooms, with the knives held by persons who for more many years were “fugitives” and enemies to the very law they transgressed without remorse.
On the moral battle, the odds are stacked against the adverse possessor. As Merill and Smith described him, “Someone who has deliberately taken the property of another is simply a bad person, and should not be rewarded for such behavior. The immorality of the original act of deprivation trumps all considerations of utility that can be argued on the other side.”[62]
It may seem that the “immoral” concept of adverse possession has overstayed its welcome under Ghanaian jurisprudence and it is about time we organized its “retirement party”. Unto our legislators, we say, “Over to you, Joe Lartey!”
[1] Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray, “Elements of Land Law”, 5th edn. (Oxford University Press, 2009) at para 9.1.15.
[2] Jeffrey E. Stake, “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession.” (2001), Article by Maurer Faculty Paper 221.
[3] The first known codification of adverse possession appears in the Code of Hammurabi around 2000 BCE.
[4] According to Jeffrey Evans Stake, ‘The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession”, 89 GEO. L.J. 2419 (2001) (“The topic of adverse possession receives prominent treatment in most property casebooks and courses … [a]nd the doctrine has large practical importance as it could be dangerous for a lawyer not to know it.”). See also Joseph William Singer et a, “Property” 293 (7th ed. 22017) (Adverse Possession claims generate substantial litigation.”)
[5] Nadav Shoked, “Who Needs Adverse Possession?”, Fordham Law Review, Volume 89, Issue 6, Article 12, 2021.
[6] Richard A. Posner, Savigny, Holmes, and the Law and Economics of Possession, 86 VA. L. Rev. 535, 560 (2000).
[7] William B. Stoebuck & Whitman, “The Law of Property”. 860 (3d ed. 2000).
[8] See Goodman supra.
[9] Op-cit.
[10] M. Nicol, “The Fiction of Adverse Possession: An Alternative Conceptualization to the Right to Control Land”, Lancaster University, 2017, 17-20.
[11] British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Adverse Possession”, 2006, 2-4.
[12] L. Fennel, “Efficient trespass: The case for bad faith adverse possession” 100 (3) Northwestern University Law Review, 2006, 1037-1096.
[13] R. Helmholz, “Adverse possession and subjective intent” 61 Washington University Law Quarterly 1983, 357.
[14] R. Helmholz, “Adverse possession and subjective intent”, 331-358.
[15] Y. Chang, “Adverse possession laws in 203 jurisdictions: Proposals for reform”, 43 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 2022, 374.
[16] British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Adverse Possession”, 2006, 27.
[17] Vane v. Vane (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. 383, 397.
[18] Katz Larissa, “The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law” (2010) 55 McGill Law Journal 47.
[19] Available online.
[20] John Locke, “Two Treatise of Government.” (1690, P Laslet ed. 1963) Oxford Blackwall (1966) para. 25.
[21] See Ruth S. Johnson, “The Shocking Law of Adverse Possession.” Reviewed by Matt Huston and posted on May 7, 2018.
[22] See Jennifer Hiatt & Jonathan Hladik, “Adverse to Change: A Modern Look at Adverse Possession”, Centre for Rural Affairs, January 2019.
[23] B. Bouckaert and B. Depoorter, “Adverse Possession: Title systems”, University of Ghent, Center for Advance Studies in Law and Economics, 1999, 20-21.
[24] Paul Gates, 1973, Swiennenga, 1977.
[25] See Locke, 2002.
[26] J.S. Mills, “Principles of Political Economy” (1902) University of Chicago Press 1993 AT P. 35.
[27] Mills, 1970.
[28] The Report touched on the “Twelve Misconceptions and Misrepresentations of the Right to Housing.”
[29] For example, “the Asian Coalition on Housing Rights found that squatters worked an average of 9.9 hours a day, while higher income groups worked only 7.3 hours per day. See B Gardner, “Squatters Rights and Adverse Possession: A Search for Equitable Application of Property Laws.” [1979] Ind. International Comparative Law Review, vol. 8:1,18 at 121 relying on the United Nations Department of Public Information, Is there a right to Housing? Available online.
[30] H. George, “Progress and Poverty” (1897) at p. 241.
[31] Professor Kirkland Miller and Maureen Milliron in their paper, “Ownership of Property and Adverse Possession from the Catholic Perspective: You’ve got to have (good) faith!” stated: “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.”
[32] Yaell Emerich, “Comparative Overview on the Transformative Effect of Acquisitive Prescription and Adverse Possession: Morality, Legitimacy and Justice”, Revue International De Droit Compare, 2015 at 1,2.
[33] Sarbah,”Fanti Customary Law” (2nd ed. at p. 66). In the first edition (1897), it was at page 56.
[34] J.B. Danquah, “Akan Laws and Customs” (1928), p.215.
[35] N.A.Ollenu, “Principles of Customary Law in Ghana”, (1962), p.140.
[36] Bentsi-Enchill K., “Ghana Land Law”, (1964) p. 16.
[37] Ghana’s current population stands at 34.8million.
[38] Jonathan, Ruth Lee, “The Shocking Law of Adverse Possession: What is Adverse Possession and Why Does It Exist?” Psychology Today, May 7, 2018.
[39] Nadav Shoked, “Who Needs Adverse Possession?”, Fordham Law Review, Volume 89, Issue 6, Article 12, 2021.
[40] Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Path of the Law” (1997) 110 Harvard Law Review 991, 1008.
[41] Jennifer Hiatt and Jonathan Hladik supra.
[42] Sussie Mutahi, “Indefeasibility of Title and Adverse Possession in Kenya: An Uneasy Relationship?”, Strathmore Law Journal, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2023 at p. 86.
[43] S. Petersson, “Something for Nothing”, 1319-1320.
[44] H. Conway and J. Stannard, “The Emotional Paradoxes of Adverse Possession”. 75-89.
[45] S. Petersson, “Something for Nothing: The Law of Adverse Possession in Alberta”, 30 (4) Alberta Law Review, 1296-1300.
[46] See Sussie Mutahi, “Indefeasibility of Title and Adverse Possession in Kenya: An Uneasy Relationship?”, Strathmore Law Journal, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2023 at p. 86.
[47] See Weymouth New Testament Version.
[48] Al-Baqarah 2:188.
[49] Aapke Masa’ailaurunke Hal Vol. 6, p.g 69, MaktabahLudhyanw.
[50] Aapke Masa’ailaurunke Hal Vol. 6, p.g 69, MaktabahLudhyanw.
[51] See Maqbool Ahmad v. Federal Government cited as 1991 SCMR 2063.
[52] The Semayne’s Case (January 1, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91, also known as “The Case of the Sheriff’s Entry.”
[53] Supra.
[54] Joseph Singer writes: “The [adverse] possessor has come to expect continued access to the property, and the true owner has fed those expectations by her actions (or her failure to act). It is morally wrong for the true owner to allow a relationship of dependence to be established and then to cut off the dependent party. The legal steps necessary to protect the true owner’s interests are relatively clear [action in ejectment], so she could have protected her own property interests if she wanted to do so.” Joseph William Singer, “The Reliance interest in Property’, 40 Stan. L. Rev. 611,667 (1988).
[55] Paul Lucas, “On Edmund Burke’s Doctrine of Prescription: Or, an Appeal from the New to the Old Lawyers, 11 Hist. J. 35, 39 (1968).
[56] Oliver Wendell Homes, “The Path of the Law”, 10 Harvard Law Review 457, 477 (1897).
[57] Itzchak Tzachi Raz, “Use It or Lose It: Adverse Possession and Economic Development”, June 2018.
[58] Una Woods, “Protection of Owners under the Law of Adverse Possession: An Inconsistent Use Test or a Qualified Veto System?’, Volume 57, Issue 2 (Fall 2020).
[59] Supra.
[60] Michael H. Lubetsky, “Adding Epicycles: The Inconsistent Use Test in Adverse Possession Law.” (2009) 47 Osgoode Hall LJ 497.
[61] See Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution.
[62] T. W. Merill and H.E. Smith, “The Morality of Property.” (2006-2007) 48 Wm.
