Brother’s registered share lost after exclusive control of shops

Franklyn Simms’ request to sell jointly registered commercial property failed when the Supreme Court found that his brother Calvin had extinguished his interest through adverse possession. The 7 October judgment turned on the operation and profits of the shops, not simply whose name appeared on the title.

The court rejected an attempt to count possession before their father’s death. For the later period, however, it accepted evidence that Calvin selected tenants, collected and retained rents, maintained the property and dealt with it for his own benefit. Franklyn’s occasional inspections did not amount to taking back possession on the facts proved.

The judgment also distinguished an effective interruption of time from later references to ownership. The acknowledgement case had not been pleaded, and a 2022 affidavit could not revive an interest which the court found had already been extinguished after the statutory period.

The sale and accounting claims therefore failed, and costs were awarded on the claim and counterclaim. The order directed the register to reflect the loss of Franklyn’s interest only; it expressly did not determine or extinguish the independent interests of other registered proprietors or estates.

A fact-specific dispute between two co-owners. The court’s order does not transfer every other family member’s interest to the defendant. Complete official judgment reviewed; subsequent appeals or treatment have not been checked.