The court considered whether the respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The court held that a purchaser was said to have actual notice of the rights which he knew and constructive notice of rights which could reasonably be expected to be discovered. The court was satisfied that the respondent was informed of the appellant’s caveat and was registered on the certificate of title when the caveat was subsisting. The court concluded that the respondent was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court also considered whether the trial court erred to hold that the appellant purchased the suit land without the consent of the vendor’s spouse. The court held that the signature of the vendor’s spouse on the land sale agreement amounted to consent. The court was satisfied that the vendor’s spouse consented to the transaction and there was no proof of any suit challenging the sale. The court accordingly concluded that the trial judge erroneously held that the appellant purchased the suit land without the consent of the vendor’s spouse.