The High Court’s decision in CV 2021‑01098 Seenath & ors v Ramlakhan & anor delivered on 8 April 2025, at first glance reads like a straightforward landlord‑and‑tenant/adverse‑possession contest. Yet paragraphs 55–56 of the Honourable Westmin J’s judgment contain a thought‑provoking obiter dicta that may give both landowners and occupiers pause.
Justice Westmin James noted that the COVID‑19 pandemic effectively shut the doors of the courts for a considerable time. While the Limitation of Certain Actions Act was formally suspended by ministerial orders, no similar orders were made in relation to claims under the Real Property Limitation Act. His Lordship suggested that “the common law should evolve” so that the running of limitation periods for adverse‑possession claims is likewise suspended when litigants are legally barred from bringing an action.
Although strictly obiter—and therefore not binding—this comment signals judicial sympathy for arguments that pandemic‑era delays ought not to prejudice a paper‑title holder. Future defendants relying on adverse possession may now face the added hurdle of establishing that time continued to run uninterrupted between March 2020 and May 2022, despite widespread court closures. Conversely, claimants may be emboldened to plead a pandemic “stop‑clock” even in the absence of express statutory authority.
The discussion in paragraphs 55–56 carries several broader implications. Parties whose 16‑year limitation period under the Real Property Limitation Act happened to straddle the pandemic may now argue—drawing on Justice James’s comments—that the clock should be regarded as paused during the months when lockdowns effectively closed the courts. For litigators, the dicta invites a more cautious approach to pleadings and a renewed emphasis on documenting the practical hurdles to commencing or serving proceedings between 2020 and 2022. At a policy level, the judgment exposes a legislative gap: while emergency regulations extended limitation periods for many civil claims, property disputes under the RPLA were left untouched, prompting questions about whether a targeted statutory amendment is now overdue.
Caveat: These reflections and statements from the Judge remain persuasive at best, no more than a marker of where the common law could go. For now, the statutory position under the RPLA still governs, with the period being 16 years to establish adverse possession.
