Concerning the merits of the appeal, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred in law and fact when he misdirected himself on the evidence that had been adduced thereby coming to wrong conclusions. The appellant therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed with costs, that judgment of the lower court be set aside and substituted with an order dismissing it.

The appellant argued that the respondent was not validly appointed the Director of the first respondent as it was held by the trail judge. Thus, he was not entitled to step in and take action against the appellant.

From the evidence that was adduced, it was found that the trail judge in his discretionary powers after adding the respondent as defendant to the main suit should have afforded an opportunity to the remaining parties, to amend the plaint and serve the same on the new defendants. In this regard, there was a failure of justice in his judgment.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the orders of learned trail judge were set aside.