By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS 

Tribune Staff Reporter 

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Privy Council has dismissed an appeal by Raymond Meadows in a property dispute involving a strip of land in Freeport, Grand Bahama, ruling that his neighbours, Keith Rolle and Dorothea Rolle, legally acquired the land through adverse possession.

The dispute began after Mr Meadows purchased land in 2017 and discovered a paved roadway and fence — built by the Rolles in 2005 — encroaching on his property. He sued for trespass, but the Rolles argued they had been in continuous possession of the land for over 12 years, making them lawful owners under the Limitation Act 1995.

The trial judge had ruled in favour of Mr Meadows, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, finding that time under the Limitation Act only stops when legal action is filed, not when ownership is verbally asserted.

The Privy Council agreed, noting that the Rolles were in possession from at least March 18, 2005 and that Mr Meadows did not initiate court proceedings until July 3, 2017, more than 12 years later. It confirmed that “the Appellants would have been in possession for more than 12 years when the Writ was issued”.

Mr Meadows also argued that land within the Port Area, governed by the Hawksbill Creek Acts and GBPA regulations, was exempt from adverse possession claims. The council rejected this, stating there is nothing in the legislation or regulations that overrides the Limitation Act.

He further claimed that restrictive covenants in the property deeds prevented adverse possession. The Privy Council dismissed this too, stating the covenants did not disapply the Limitation Act or waive any landowner’s legal rights.

The board rejected the notion that a court-issued certificate under the Quieting Titles Act was required before claiming adverse possession, clarifying that title vests automatically under the Limitation Act after 12 years of undisturbed occupation.

Concluding that none of Mr Meadows’ arguments had merit, the Privy Council dismissed the appeal without requiring a response from the Rolles’ legal team.