Methods of Reforming Adverse Possession of Registered Land: A Critique

Authors

  • Idris Odekunle University of Lagos

Keywords:

Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Security of Title, Reform, Unjust Enrichment and Restitution Standards

Abstract

In spite of the various justifications advanced to support the law on adverse possession, the doctrine has been variously interrogated especially its capability of defeating the notion of indefeasibility of title which is a fundamental characteristic of land registration. The problems have sparked up waves of reform of the doctrine across jurisdictions and works by various scholars. The aim of any such reform is tailored towards conferring additional protection on the registered land owners against undeserving adverse possession claims, in a manner which preserves certain valuable functions performed by the doctrine. This work, using the doctrinal methodology interrogates some existing alternative methods of reform of adverse possession but finds that none of the existing methods of reform can adequately protect the interest of registered land owners. The work in its contribution to knowledge proposes restitution as a workable solution to deal with the negative effects of adverse possession of registered land, and concludes that the best way to protect the interest of registered land owners is through the application of restitution principle founded on unjust enrichment to the operation of adverse possession.

References

Mani, P. (2006). Adverse Possession: A Critique, Uttarakhand Judicial & Legal Review. Retrieved from https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/ch06.pdf. Accessed on 12/01/2022.
Sprankling, J. (1994). An Environmental Critique of Adverse Possession. 79 Cornell Law Review.
Merrill, W. (1984). Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Adverse Possession. Northwestern University Law Review.
Fennell, L. (2006). Efficient Trespass: The Case for Bad Faith Adverse Possession. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 1037, 1046.
Elfant, N. (1984-1985). Compensation for the Involuntary Transfer of Property between Private Parties: Application of a Liability Rule to the Law of Adverse Possession. Northwestern University Law Review 758.
Stake, J. (2000-2001). The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession. Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2419.
Merrill, T. (1984-1985). Property Rules, Liability Rules and Adverse Possession (1984-85) Northwestern University Law Review 79, 1122.
Smith, O. (2017). The Relevance of Adverse Possession as a Registrable Interest under the Law of Lagos. Private and Property Law Department, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, 1-234.
Easterbrook, H. & Fischel, D. (1991). The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Harvard University Press.
Chiarella, H. (1982). SEC Rule 14e-3 and Dirks: Fairness versus Economic Theory. Business Law. 517- 545.
Macey, J. (1984). From Fairness to Contract: the New Direction of the Rules against Insider Trading. Hofstra Law Review.
Muldrow, L. (1957). The Adverseness of Possession to Fractional Interests. Baylor Law Review 168.
Katz, L. (2010). The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law. McGill Law Journal, 55, 47.
Cobb, N. & Fox, L. (2007). Living outside the system? The (Im)morality of Urban Squatting after the Land Registration Act 2002. Legal Studies, 27, 1-7.
Emiri, F. (2013). Law of Restitution in Nigeria . Malthouse Press Limited Lagos.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R. & Sherman, W. (1997) Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault, L. & SOC‟Y REV.
Lepinskas, R. (2003). Unjust Enrichment Claims in Illinois: Applying a Venerable Doctrine to Modern Disputes, ILL. BAR J.
Emily Sherwin, Restitution and Equity: An Analysis of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment, 79 TEX. L. REV.
Karon, R. (2005). Undoing the Otherwise Perfect Crime – Applying Unjust Enrichment to Consumer Price-Fixing Claims, 108 W. VA. L. REV. 108, 395-397.
Kanner, A. (2005). Unjust Enrichment in Environmental Litigation. ENVTL. L. & LITIG.
Sherwin, E. (2006). Love, Money, and Justice: Restitution between Cohabitants, U. COLO. L. REV. 77, no.6, 711-713.
Sherwin, E. (2004). Reparations and Unjust Enrichment, B.U. L. REV. 1443-1448.
Parkinson, P. (1993). The Notion of Unconscionability, Unfair Dealing, 35, 8.
McConvill, J. & Mirko, B. (2002). The Yoking of Unconscionability and Unjust Enrichment in Australia, DEAKIN L. REV. 13.
Chitty, J. (2008). Chitty on Contract. General Principles. Thomas Reuters: London, 30th ed.
Annasaheb vs B.B.Patil AIR 1995 SC 895.
Papamichael v National Westminster Bank [2003 1 Llyod’s Rep. 341, 372.
JA Pye (Oxford) v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419.
HPI Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 545 N.E.2d 672, 679 (Ill. 1989);
Bellew v Bellew [1982] IR 447.
Teis v Ancaster (Town) (n 41) [24].
Bellew v Bellew [1982] IR 447.
Irish Statute of Limitation 1957.
Limitation Act 1980.
The Land Registration Act 2002.
Land Registration Law of Lagos State 2015.
Restatement of Restitution 1 (1937).
Law Commission, Land Registration for Twenty First Century: A conveyancing Revolution (Law Com No. 271 2001) para 14.36.

Downloads

Published

2022-03-31

Issue

Section

Studies and Articles