The court considered the questions of, whether the plaintiff was the lawful leasee of the suit land. And what remedies were available to both parties.

With regard to issue one, the court found that the plaintiff had been granted a lease for five years, at its expiry, the lease was extended to another three years.

Further on the issue of whether the plaintiff acquired the lease lawfully, the defendant company at the time of sale was a sitting tenant and the defendant company ought to have been given priority over any other applicant.

However, the court found that the plaintiff being a government body, it had to be considered first. There was no evidence showing that the Bank or any of its officials had used its influence to have the property leased to the Plaintiff bank.

The court found that the defendant’s failure to vacate the premises, failure to pay rent and continuous stay on the premises amounted to trespass. However, the claim for rent was rejected since the action was brought in summary procedure and the rent dues were not ascertained.

An order for immediate eviction of the defendant Company was thereby made.