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? 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.
The case concerned four industrial units identified as numbers 240, 241, 242 and 249, according to The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 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.
In July 2023, Francis approached the Registrar of Lands to have the register amended to recognise his claimed ownership. Reportedly, a separate constitutional provision, section 31, also featured in the proceedings. 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. Its lawyers pointed to New Longwood House, a building constructed between 1818 and 1821 as a possible replacement for Napoleon’s original residence.
The building subsequently became the residence of Governor Dallas, the last East India Company Governor of St Helena, according to the government’s account. 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. 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. His lawyers referred to a historical map held at the National Archives in London. The Crown disputed this interpretation. Napoleon never moved into it. 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.