their property from adverse possessors. In the United States, for example, these time limits vary widely between individual states, ranging from as low as three years to as long as 40 years” See MERRILL V SMITH 2016 p 161 See also decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines CECILIA. T. JAVELOSA GR No 204361@ July 04 2018. 72. The Court notes that the records show that up to the time of the auction, the Applicant was in possession of the disputed property and had so remained from 1963, when he claimed to have acquired the said property. There is no evidence that his quiet enjoyment was interrupted prior to the auction that was carried out in 2004. Therefore, a quick mathematic calculation shows that the Applicant had enjoyed uninterrupted enjoyment of the said property for forty-one (41) years before the auction. The question to ask is that if the property really belongs to a person named Siekhe, where was he all these years? Why did he allow an alleged trespasser to remain in uninterrupted possession of his property for forty-one (41) years only to suddenly wake up to claim ownership of the property? If indeed there was a Siekhe different from the Applicant how can this lache be explained? 73. Assuming but not conceding that the argument of the Respondent on statute bar holds water, the pertinent question is to whom is the property lost, to a mortgagor who has no title as against to a party in occupation for 41 years? Assuming but not conceding that the Applicant was an adverse possessor, who and where is the original owner who is contesting the occupancy of the disputed property? The Respondent, a Member State of the ECOWAS who has been waging a fierce war of defence on behalf of the invincible Siekhe is unable in this instance to stand in the gap for him. The Respondent must ensure that he is seen to do all possible to defend his case personally or by a written witness statement. A defence for the Bank will 28