Court considered the appeal and disagreed
with decision of the appellate court as
erroneous. At first appeal, the point of
contention was whether the burden of proof
lay on the applicant to prove that he was a
bonafide occupant. Court held that since the
appellant had only raised a defence and not a

counter claim, the appellate judge had erred
in shifting the burden of proof unto the
appellant.
Court accordingly held that the appellant was
a customary owner of the portion of land on
the suit land.
Court allowed the appeal.