The court held that this being the first appellate
court, it has the duty to re appraise the
evidence and reach an independent conclusion.
That the grant of leave to defend under o 36 is
matter of judicial discretion, that the onus is on
the defendant to show cause and that the claim
of illegal contract was a sham defence meant to
override the obligation of responding to
summons. That the points of law cited were a
sham.