The court stated that the defendant was not entitled to sell the plot where the matrimonial home stood without the plaintiff’s consent.it as further held that his act and conduct of chasing the plaintiff and their children from the home was unequitable, since they were beneficiaries and he had to consult from them first. As such they were also entitled to the proceeds of the sale.

It was further stated that the second defendant knew that it was matrimonial property, and was aware of the presence of the plaintiff on the land. However, he went ahead to transfer the property into his names.

The court thus found that all the defendants were fraudulent, thereby putting the plaintiff to considerable inconvenience.

Accordingly, the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.