Law Report: Collier v Williams (CIV APP 25 of 1966) 1967 SLCA 1246
Case Name:
Collier v Williams (CIV APP 25 of 1966) 1967 SLCA 1246
Court:
Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone
Judges:
- Sir Samuel Bankole Jones, P.
- Tejan-Sie, C.J.
- Luke, Ag. J.A.
Date of Judgment:
10 July 1967
Appellant:
Gilbert Marie Collier (represented by Buck)
Respondent:
Bridget Odelia Williams (represented by McCormack)
2. Case Summary
In this civil appeal, the respondent, Bridget Odelia Williams, sued the appellant, Gilbert Marie Collier, for damages for trespass to land and sought an injunction. Both parties claimed to be in possession of the disputed land, tracing their titles back to conveyances made in 1918 and 1929, respectively. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to this appeal.
The appellant contended that the trial court had not properly considered the question of possession, arguing that he had a stronger claim based on his father’s ownership of the land from 1929 until his death in 1963.
3. Grounds of Appeal
The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, with the central issues focusing on:
Question of Possession:
The appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly address the issue of who was in actual possession of the land at the time of the alleged trespass. The appellant claimed that his family had been in continuous possession since 1929, which should have given him the stronger claim to the land.Legal Title and Possession:
The appellant further contended that the trial court erred in concluding that the respondent had the better title based solely on the earlier date of her predecessor’s conveyance. The appellant asserted that possession, rather than the date of conveyance, should have been the deciding factor.Application of the Registration of Instruments Act:
The appellant challenged the trial court’s application of the Registration of Instruments Act, arguing that it should not have been the decisive factor in determining ownership and possession.
4. The Trial
During the trial, both parties presented evidence to support their claims of possession. The respondent traced her title back to a 1918 conveyance, while the appellant traced his back to a 1929 conveyance. Despite the appellant’s claim of continuous possession, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that the respondent’s title dated back further and that the appellant had not produced his original deed as evidence.
The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s application for a site visit, stating that the primary issues were the legal title and the question of whether a trespass had occurred, rather than a boundary dispute.
5. Key Issues on Appeal
Possession and Legal Title:
The Court of Appeal had to consider whether possession or the date of the conveyance should determine the rightful owner of the disputed land. The appellant argued that his continuous possession of the land from 1929 should outweigh the respondent’s earlier conveyance.
Application of Legal Principles:
The appeal also questioned whether the trial court correctly applied legal principles regarding trespass and possession. The appellant cited Jones v. Chapman (1847) in support of his argument that possession should follow the title when there is a dispute between two parties both claiming possession.
Registration of Instruments Act:
The Court of Appeal also examined whether the trial court correctly applied Section 4 of the Registration of Instruments Act, which gives priority to deeds based on their date of registration.
6. Judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision that the respondent had the better title and was entitled to damages for trespass. The court emphasized that in cases where possession is disputed, the law attaches possession to the party with the better title.
Principles from the Judgment:
On the issue of possession and title:
“Where possession is doubtful, or equivocal, the law attaches it to the title.”On the application of the Registration of Instruments Act:
“Every deed, contract, or conveyance, executed after the ninth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, so far as regards any land to be thereby affected shall take effect, as against other deeds affecting the same land, from the date of its registration.”On the determination of possession:
“If there are two persons in a field, each asserting that the field is his, and each doing some act in the assertion of the right of possession… the question as to which of the two really is in possession, is determined by the fact of the possession following the title.”
7. Conclusion
The case of Collier v Williams reaffirms the principle that in disputes over possession, the law favors the party with the stronger legal title. The decision underscores the importance of producing valid documentation to support claims of ownership and the significance of the Registration of Instruments Act in determining the priority of claims.
- Trespass to Land
- Possession and Title
- Civil Procedure Sierra Leone
- Registration of Instruments Act
- Land Dispute Case Law
DOWNLOAD THE FULL CASE BELOW