Both parties laid claim to the land in dispute on the basis of traditional evidence at the upper area court which, after a visit to the land, granted title in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant pleaded traditional history and acts of possession as a basis for the claim to the land in dispute.
The parties gave competing evidence of traditional history in respect of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs however proved several acts of ownership and possession.
The appellants claimed title to the land in dispute; they had been placed on the land as customary tenants by the respondents.
The respondent (as plaintiff) sued the appellants (as Defendants) at the trial for a declaration as rightful holders of a customary right of occupancy in respect of some pieces of land, damages for
The respondents' claims title to the chieftaincy stool in dispute but admitted that the staff of office of had been in the possession of the appellant.