In Brief
The appellants purchased a house and requested the respondent, who occupied part of it, to vacate. The respondent refused, claiming adverse possession over the property through 40 years of occupation. The trial court found adverse possession in favour of the respondent. The first appellate court reversed this, holding the respondent was merely in permissive possession. The High Court reinstated the trial court's order. The Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal, holding that adverse possession requires positive assertion of hostile ownership against the true owner, duly pleaded and proved with particularity. Mere long occupation is insufficient; the respondent failed to prove the essential elements, including when the assertion began and that it was openly hostile. The respondent's possession was permissive and could be withdrawn by the true owners upon purchase."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.