Man claims Crown land linked to Napoleon’s former dairy after 15 years

NewsWorld NewsUK NewsA man claimed a piece of Crown land on St Helena after occupying it for 15 years; the plot was linked to Napoleon Bonaparte's former dairy, and the Privy Council ruled that government land can be acquired through long-term possession A man claimed a piece of Crown land on St Helena after occupying it for 15 years; the plot was linked to Napoleon Bonaparte's former dairy, and the Privy Council ruled that government land can be acquired through long-term possession A dispute over a small piece of land on the South Atlantic island of St Helena has brought together an unusual combination of history, property law and a question about the limits of government ownership.

The land was associated with a former dairy belonging to Napoleon Bonaparte, who spent the final years of his life in exile on the island. At the centre of the case was a man named Francis, who argued that his long occupation of the plot gave him a legal claim to it.

His application raised a question that had not previously been tested in court on St Helena: could someone acquire government-owned land simply by occupying it for 15 years?How Francis used a 15-year possession rule to claim two Crown-owned units According to The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the case concerned four industrial units identified as numbers 240, 241, 242 and 249.

Francis had entered into a lease with the Governor of St Helena on 25 March 1995, covering units 240 and 242. After taking possession of those premises, he also occupied unit 241. He later took possession of unit 249 in 2006.His claim centred on units 241 and 249, which he said he had occupied for long enough to acquire ownership under the island's land legislation.

The relevant provision was section 135 of the Registered Land Ordinance 1980. It allows ownership to pass to someone who has possessed land openly, peacefully and without interruption for 15 years, provided the occupation was without the permission of the person legally entitled to possess it.In July 2023, Francis approached the Registrar of Lands to have the register amended to recognise his claimed ownership.

The Crown objected, arguing that government-owned land could not be acquired in this way. The Registrar then referred the legal question to the Supreme Court of St Helena, leaving the individual circumstances of Francis's claim to be considered separately.1833 law that became central to the Crown's land ownership argument The Crown's objection rested partly on a provision of the Saint Helena Act 1833, originally the Government of India Act 1833.

Section 112 transferred St Helena, along with specified properties and government-related assets on the island, to the Crown.The government also relied on section 159 of the 1980 Registered Land Ordinance. This provision protects interests, rights and powers given to the Crown or government under other written laws.

Its argument was that allowing someone to acquire land through 15 years of occupation would interfere with the Crown's rights under the older legislation.Reportedly, a separate constitutional provision, section 31, also featured in the proceedings.

It gives the Governor, or someone authorised by the Governor, the power to make grants and other dispositions of Crown property. The government argued that the rules allowing ownership to pass through long-term possession could not override this arrangement.The question was therefore not simply whether Francis had occupied the land for long enough.

The courts had to consider how an older law governing the island's transfer to the Crown fitted alongside a much newer system for registering land ownership.The former dairy gave the land its historical connection Francis's legal team argued that the disputed land formed part of the former dairy associated with Longwood House, where Napoleon Bonaparte lived during his exile on St Helena from 1815 until his death in 1821.His lawyers referred to a historical map held at the National Archives in London.

They argued that it showed the land being used by the East India Company for commercial purposes by 1830, with parts of it leased or intended for sale. If that account was correct, they said, the property might not have fallen within the category of land used for government purposes under section 112 of the 1833 Act.The Crown disputed this interpretation.

Its lawyers pointed to New Longwood House, a building constructed between 1818 and 1821 as a possible replacement for Napoleon's original residence. Napoleon never moved into it. According to the government's account, the building subsequently became the residence of Governor Dallas, the last East India Company Governor of St Helena.The Crown cited historical publications referring to Dallas moving into the property in 1832 and a report from 1834 describing the new house as the Governor's residence.The Privy Council did not settle this historical disagreement.

It was not necessary to decide whether the disputed property had actually passed into Crown ownership under the 1833 legislation to resolve the principal legal question.The case produced different answers in the island's courts The first ruling came from Chief Justice Rupert Jones in the Supreme Court of St Helena in 2024.

In Francis v Attorney General of St Helena [2024] SHSC 6, he concluded that there was no legal prohibition on acquiring Crown land through prescription.His reasoning included the distinction between a government grant and a transfer of ownership that occurs through the operation of law.

He considered that the constitutional provision governing the Governor's power to dispose of Crown property did not prevent ownership from passing through the statutory possession rules.The Attorney General appealed.

Later that year, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion in Attorney General of St Helena v Francis [2024] SHCA 5. It agreed that section 31 of the Constitution did...