This appeal arose from the property of
departed Asians that had been given to the
prisons department but later contested s
belonging to the appellant. The respondent
filed successfully and an ex parte judgment
was entered but set aside on application but on
further hearing, the proprietorship was found to
be laying with the respondent hence the appeal
on the grounds that the transaction was
fraudulent, improper evaluation of evidence on

record, privity of the appellants in the alleged
fraud, holding on bonafide occupancy.