On the translation that the chief magistrate relied on, court held that the appellant did not point out which part of the translation was wrong yet it was his duty.
On admission of additional evidence on appeal, court held that an appellate court is allowed to call for additional evidence. Additionally, what the additional witness gave the same evidence as that in the first court of the RC3 and the appellant was given a chance to cross-examine therefore the evidence did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
On the fourth ground, court held that the finding of the chief magistrate was founded because on the record, the deceased had given his land to his widow as a gift and she had a right to give it as she wished.
On evaluation of evidence, court held that the chief magistrate evaluated the evidence basing on her findings that are backed with evidence.