RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUESAs a starting point, the Court noted that the relief sought by the Appellant at the High Court was declaratory in nature. In affirming the decision of the High Court, the Court made reference to the record of proceedings particularly as regards the visit by the High Court to the locus in quo. Upon the visit, the High Court discovered that the land was indeed a bare land as averred by the respondent. The appellant therefore has no locus to institute the action for trespass because, as the Court held, it is the person in actual possession of the land and the person entitled to possession of the land that can sue for trespass. In the circumstances, the Court held that the High Court was right to dismiss the case of the appellant for failure to prove same.

Source: The Guardian June 09, 2020 02:37 UTC