Mortgagee-sale buyers lose possession claim to earlier occupier

Purchasing land through a mortgagee’s power of sale did not secure possession for Stephen and Khadian Babolal. On 8 May, the Supreme Court dismissed their recovery claim after finding that Urban Newman had acquired a possessory title before the sale to them.

The court accepted evidence of long-standing control, letting, rent collection and improvements for Newman’s own benefit. It found insufficient evidence to establish that his occupation remained permissive under a binding purchase arrangement with the former registered owner. The possession evidence therefore had to be assessed under the limitation legislation.

The buyers also relied on a 1999 lawyer’s letter to the mortgagee. The judge rejected it as the statutory acknowledgement argued for, and added that even a restart in 1999 would still have left twelve years before the 2016 transfer. Neither the mortgage nor the later registered purchase answered the established limitation defence.

Judgment and costs went to the estate’s representative. The result does not mean every occupier defeats a mortgagee-sale buyer: it depended on proof of possession, intention, time and the failure to establish that a surviving title could be passed in this transaction.

Recovery-of-possession claim determined on the specific evidence. The report does not decide remedies the purchasers might have against other persons. Complete official judgment reviewed; subsequent appeals or treatment have not been checked.