The court considered whether the suit was filed out of time. The court held that the cause of action arose after the discovery of the fraud and the 12 year limitation period ran after the discovery. The court was satisfied that the appellant did not discover the fraud until other people claimed the suit land. The court accordingly concluded that the suit was not time barred.
The court considered whether there was constructive notice on the part of the respondent’s father. The court held that a person a transaction would be robbed of honesty and truthfulness where the buyer did not conduct a physical search of the land before purchasing it. The court was satisfied that the respondent’s father carried out a search in the land office and had the land surveyed before purchasing it. The court accordingly concluded that the respondent’s father did not have constructive notice of the fraud but his title was subject to the appellant’s right of occupancy.