The court held that this court, being a first
appellate court ought to subject the evidence
on record to a fresh review and scrutiny and
come to its own conclusions bearing in mind,
however, that it did not see the witnesses
testify. That that the point raised by the
Tribunal was a critical point of law which
could not be cured by way of amending the
plaint. That this matter was finally determined
and there is a bar at law to re-opening it. That
appellant's indebtedness or discharge from the
debt is res judicata. That at the time of the sale
of the suit properties to the fourth respondent,
the equity of redemption had already been lost.
That that an illegal sale does not reverse the
foreclosure on a debt that is due and owing.