By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

(a) that up to the 5 th February, 1979 the day the revocation order was madeand the plaint filed, the defendant was at law the holder of the right ofoccupancy over the suit plot (b) that the revocation order had a doubleeffect – it rendered the defendant’s right of occupancy void and theplaintiffs title good; and (c) that from that day, but for the interim order ofthis court, the plaintiff was entitled to have peaceful possession and to bein lawful occupation of the plot.The question that arises for determination is whether the learned trial judge isright in this conclusion. To deal with the matter we will start with a briefexamination of the law. Section 10 of the Land Ordinance sets out the conditionswhich must first be fulfilled before the President may lawfully revoke a right ofoccupancy to land. Section 10 provides, inter alia:10-(1) it shall not be lawful for the President to revoke a right of occupancygranted as aforesaid save for good cause. Good cause shall include(a) non-payment of rent, taxes, or other dues imposed upon the land;(b) abandonment or no-use of the land for a period of five years(c) breach of the provisions of s. 14(d) breach of any term or condition contained or to be implied in the citrate ofoccupancy or in any contract made in accordance with s.7:(e) attempted alienation by a native in favour of a non-native:(f) breach of any regulations under this Ordinance relating to the transfer ofor other dealings with rights of occupancy or interest therein.637