This was an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s order cancelling the fifth appellant’s name from the title of land.
The appeal was made on ten grounds.
On ground one, that the court below erred when granting an order that was neither sought nor pleaded, the Supreme Court found that there was no prayer for cancellation, but it was a direct consequence of the order setting aside the High Court’s decree.
Ground two, that the procedure challenging and cancelling the title was wrong, the court held that the correct procedure was adopted.
Grounds three, six, seven, and eight were considered together, and dismissed. The grounds were that court below erred when it held that the fifth appellant was not a good faith purchaser; the assignment of the decree was illegal and fraudulent; the execution and sale were null and void; and the property could not be the subject of lawful attachment and sale in execution.
On ground four, that the court below erred when it ordered cancellation on contradictory grounds, the court found that the justices reached the same conclusion using different arguments.
Ground five, that the court below erred when they adjudicated on issues that were not before them, was disallowed.
Ground nine, that the court below erred in holding that the fourth appellant acted unlawfully and fraudulently when he executed a warrant of attachment for the property, lacked merit and failed.
Ground ten, that the orders granted were injudicious, unfair and inequitable, failed.
The appeal was dismissed.