By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The learned trial judge in his judgment, after discussing at some length therespective claims of the parties to the land, held that the right of occupancygranted to Patman Garments Industries Limited over the land, was perfectlyproper in law. He saidIn my judgment, I find that the right of occupancy which was granted to thedefendant was perfectly good and that there was nothing irregular in the manneritr was granted to him. I find that the right of occupancy which was granted to theplantiff on 29 th May, 1978 was, at least up to the day the revocation order wasmade ie the day the plaint was brought to court, colorable and inoperative.Whether it acquired any validity subsequent to that order is a matter to bepresently determined. And that leads me directly to the question whether therevocation order is sustainable.The learned trial judge then went on to discuss whether the President’s exerciseof the power of revocation of the right of occupancy in this case fell under theprovisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of s.10 of the Land Ordinance, andthe concluding, for reasons which are not apparent on the judgement, that thePresident must have revoked the right of occupancy held by Patman GarmentsIndustries Limited by invoking the provisions of subsection (2) ie., in the publicinterest, proceeded to discuss the issue whether the courtcould impugn thevalidity of the decision by the President. In the end the learned trial judge was notsatisfied that the President had acted either improperly or mistakenly on thematter and accordingly held.-636