In this case, the appellant had sued the respondent for recovery of land and general damages for trespass to land. The trail magistrate had found the respondent not a trespasser thereby dismissing the suit against the appellants, hence this appeal.

The appeal was based on grounds that the land had been registered fraudulently, which the trail magistrate failed to ascertain. That had the trail magistrate properly considered the long and uninterrupted settlement of the appellants, it would not have declared him a trespasser.

Counsel for the appellant argued that he had stayed on the land since 1961, almost 21 years before the respondent. As such, there was no way she would have been in possession whether constructive, active or otherwise.