The appellants challenged the decision by a trial judge declaring the respondents as owners of the land in dispute.
The appellants based their challenge on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law by failing to evaluate all the evidence put before him. They further alleged that the trial judge allowed witnesses who were not in court to give evidence during a site investigation. They also claimed that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and that the judge did not record the proceedings during the site investigation.
The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that that the trial judge properly handled the dispute and that the appellant had no interest in the land in dispute because their father had sold his interest in the land.
In deciding the matter, the court held that when the judge conducted the locus in quo (the place where the cause of action arose), he should have allowed the cross examination of witnesses. It ruled that the site visit was conducted in a highly irregular manner contravening court rules. It found that it was irregular for a court to allow a witness who did not testify in court to give evidence. Thus the appeal was allowed.