The court held that
the respondent had done due diligence when
inquired from the neighbours and also asked
the appellant’s mother if she had talked to her
children about the sale and she replied in the
affirmative and as such, acquired good title.
The court was satisfied that the trial
magistrate properly evaluated the evidence
and established that the respondent was the
owner of the suit land the respondent.
Accordingly the court upheld the trial
magistrate’s finding.
The court also considered whether the
general damages awarded to the appellant
were excessive. The court held that that the
award was made to enrich the respondent as
opposed to compensating him for any acts
occasioned by the appellant the damages
awarded even exceeded the purchase price of
thee suit land. The court was satisfied that the
general damages awarded were excessive and

unnecessary. Accordingly the court varied
the general damages awarded to the
respondent to from 8,000,000/= to
1,000,000/=.