In this case, the appellants sought to challenge the decision of the trail magistrate where she gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff and ordered for vacant possession of the suit land.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been on the land since 1988, over 15 years before the respondent surfaced. And that the matter had been time barred.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the case was one of trespass, a continuing tort which could not be affected by the Limitation Act.