The court held that despite the wrong
procedure, the appellants could have moved
the court to have a full trial or to examine
deponents of affidavits as witnesses, to ensure
trial of all issues. They chose not to do so. That
there is sufficient evidence on record, which
shows that the suit was not time barred. That
The alleged so-called “shortfalls” of powers of
attorney were not substantiated. That the fact
of permitting the use of the certificates of title,
as court exhibits in the Trust Administrator’s
case, cannot be construed as evidence of
release or waiver of the respondent’s rights
over the certificates, let alone the mortgaged
property. That While it is correct to say that

both suits indirectly relate to the indebtedness
of the 1st appellant to the respondent, the
substantial issues for determination in the two
suits was different.