Court considered the appeal ground on
whether the trial judge was right in ordering
the trial to commence afresh after the first
judge excused himself from the case. Court
held that hearing the case de novo was within
the discretion of the subsequent judge and
that the trial judge had not erred.
Court also considered whether the trial had
erred in finding that the expunged affidavits
rendered the petition a naked bundle of
averments.
Court agreed with the trial judge that upon
the expunging of 32 affidavits for being
poorly commissioned, the appellant had no
evidence on record to satisfy the burden of
proof.
Court accordingly disallowed the appeal and
dismissed it.