Court considered whether the appellant had grounds for appeal on the basis that the chief magistrate had summarily decided the case without executing it duty to evaluate evidence on record and reach its own decision.
Court held that the Chief Magistrate was under an obligation to make a fresh evaluation of the evidence case. Court added that this however did not amount to a miscarriage of justice; it however was a ground of appeal. Court in evaluating the evidence of the trial magistrate held, it would only deviate from the findings of the trial magistrate who had listened to the witnesses and studied their demeanour only if such findings were unsound.
Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had trespassed into his land since the appellant had failed to show the survey marks separating the two plots of land.
Court accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs.