Regarding the first ground, it was found that the judge ought to have considered whether the customary practice relating to sale of customary land raised in evidence were applicable or not. However, non-compliance with the customary practice was not in any way prejudicial to the findings of the judge, as he still would have found in the same way.

Further, regarding the contract of sale, it was found that ingredients of a legal contract had been proved, but the agreement of sale was invalid. It was thus, found that the transaction was actually not a sale but a tenancy. Thus, the sale agreement was found to have been unlawful.

Concerning the issue of fraud, it was argued that particulars of fraud had not been proved, and that, to the contrary, there was proof that the appellant did not know, at the time he was purchasing the land, that there was any other person with interest in the land. the court found that there was failure to give notice to the appellant, but that, this was a curable irregularity that could not render the sale a nullity.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs.