In Brief
The appellant purchased a property via registered deed in 1997 and constructed a building on it, claiming ownership under adverse possession. The original owner sued him under the Land Grabbing Act, alleging encroachment. The survey report showed the property actually lay in survey no. 9 (the owner's deed) rather than survey no. 10 (the appellant's deed). The Court upheld the land-grabbing finding, holding that the Act does not require violent criminality but covers unauthorised occupation. Once the owner proved prima facie title, the burden shifted to the appellant to rebut it, which he failed to do. His adverse-possession plea lacked proof of construction dates and hostile intent, especially since the owner opposed the construction early on. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.