Court considered whether the transaction through which the 1^st Defendant was registered as proprietor of the suit property was false and fraudulent. From the testimony of the 1^st defendant, court concluded that the Plaintiff did not sign the sale agreement, the transfer form and consent forms which led to the registration of the 1^st Defendant.

As to whether the 1^st Defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

That a bona fide purchaser was defined as a person who purchased the land without the notice of any suitable interest or claim. That the tests of a bona fide purchaser was that (S)he: (a) Must have a valid certificate of title from a person registered as proprietor through fraud or otherwise. (b) Must have paid valuable consideration for the land. (c) Must have acted in good faith without notice of fraud whether actual constructive or implied.

That a bona fide purchaser obtains a good title even, if he purchases from a proprietor who previously obtained it through fraud.

It was held that that the 1^st Defendant did not know that he was dealing with impostors.He was introduced by impostors who had mortgaged the property to the 2^nd defendant and paid the redemption money to the 2^nd defendant.He accordingly bought the same in good faith and that his registration as proprietor gave him good title to the suit property.

Court further held that the Plaintiff was privy to the fraudulent acts of impersonating him since he had authorised another person to use the title for securing loan facilities which she failed to service. That in those circumstances the Plaintiff had stripped himself of the protection he would have otherwise enjoyed under Section 176 (c) of the Registration of Titles Act.