CB writes: Greetings, I really admire the job you are doing. I got married to a Canadian about five years ago but since then, I have not seen my wife and neither was the marriage consummated. Can same be annulled? I await your response. Thanks.

There seems to be some misconception about suits for nullity of marriage. The concept of having a marriage consummated is for the parties to have sexual intercourse to 'seal the deal'. As far as I know, there are no provisions in law to have a marriage nullified on the grounds that the marriage was not consummated.

In fact, section 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') provides that: Decrees of nullity of marriage may be pronounced by the court on the ground that the marriage is void on any of the following grounds, that is to say -

a. One of the parties to the marriage had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage:

b. The marriage was void under the provisions of the Marriage Act or any other laws relating to marriage in force for the time being in Jamaica:

c. The consent of either of the parties to the marriage was not a valid consent because:

i. It was obtained by duress or fraud

ii. One party was mistaken as to the identity of the other party or as to the nature of the ceremony performed; or

iii. One party was mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony at the time of the marriage; or

d. The parties to the marriage were, at the time of the marriage, of the same sex.

In light of the above, it is my view that nullity is not the option. From the facts outlined, CB can now apply for a divorce having being married for two years and more and from all indication, having being separated for 12 months or more.

ADVERSE POSSESSION OF NEXT DOOR?

SJ writes: I read your article on squatting and I have a question regarding adverse possession. I have lived close to a vacant lot in Hope Pastures for more than 25 years. I am interested in purchasing the property now but I am unable to locate the owner. I am told that if I pay up the back taxes on the property, I can apply for a registered title, but this sounds very risky. Is this something you would advise against?

You are smart. It is indeed very risky as it takes more than the payment of taxes to make a claim for adverse possession. The real test is to have possession and control and then to assert your rights as owner for the time prescribed in law. The payment of taxes is one of the things that will help. If you intend to apply for adverse possession of that lot, much more than the payment of taxes will be required. In the circumstances, this is something I would advise against, unless you can show continuous possession and control for 12 years or more, if the lot is owned by a private person and not the Crown.

Keith N. Bishop is an attorney-at-law and a partner in the firm of BIshop & Fullerton. He may be contacted by email at knbishop@gmail.com.