Adverse Possession & Procedural Safeguards in Madagascar: A ToamasinaAppeal Case

Key Takeaways:

In Madagascar, courts rigorously enforce procedural safeguards in adverse possession (acquisitive prescription) cases, especially when parties were not properly summoned.  A recent government decision of December 2024 has suspended all new acquisitive prescription requests, aiming to curb land fraud.  For landowners and occupiers alike, this suspension introduces new uncertainty about pending and future prescription claims.

Legal framework & Case Narrative:

In a dispute before the Court of Appeal of Toamasina, a well-documented battle unfolded over property rights through prescription and procedural defenses. The claimant had secured a judgment by default at the trial level in the late 1990s, without fully notifying the registered owner. That owner later filed a third-party opposition and contested the judgment in successive appeals. The appellate court eventually reversed earlier judgments; but the matter was sent to the Supreme Court, which in 2023 cassated the earlier appellate decision and remanded the case to a newly composed bench.

Key procedural issues included whether the registered owner was properly summoned under Article 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether field assessments and evaluation commissions gave proper notice, and whether the ownership claim via corporate merger was valid without fresh registration. The dispute hinges not only on possession over time, but on the validity of procedural steps and substitution of rights.

Consequences of the Suspension of Acquisitive Prescription:

In December 2024, the Council of Ministers ordered a suspension of all new requests for acquisitive prescription, instructing land administration services to halt processing such applications. This measure, widely reported in Malagasy media, aims to prevent abuses and fraud in land registration.

The suspension does not automatically invalidate past judgments, but casts doubt on the stability of future prescription claims. Those seeking acquisition by long possession now face increased scrutiny and regulatory uncertainty. For ongoing cases, courts may require more rigorous proof of possession continuity, procedural regularity, and proper notification. Practitioners must be alert: mere long occupation may no longer suffice without bulletproof procedural documentation.

Strategic Implications:

This case underscores that for land disputes in Madagascar today, two layers matter equally: procedural correctness and substantive justification of possession. The recent suspension heightens risk: parties relying on prescription must now bolster every procedural act — summons, commission notices, field evidence — to survive judicial review. In mergers or succession claims, verifying corporate continuity and procedural rights is essential. As the legal framework evolves, counsel must remain vigilant and proactive.