batwsan the plaintifi’ and the dfiffifldéiflt. As such, the
trial Court dismissed the suit.
5:}. 03:3 appeal by 3113.6 plainfifi, the _
Court concurred with the judgngiit af -. Cfillfifi ” ” ‘V
and COflS€q116I1t1}’ dismissed theé;pp:2;*.1.:’ A
6. 1 have heard sm¢.a:s0pa1g
502111531 for {he appeliant a.n_(§:’;2¢::~:.;seci’ jgéimxsnts
Ilfldfii’ appeal.
7′, _I_¥IAé_ifé;:f1g:,_ _’ iearned counsei for the
appeE1a1″‘r£…;a :;d ififh’ the judgment: sf {ha warts
below,” Lam’ GE. efinsifiered apinien that 31¢ appeal
dae;fsi Iizzét _4ii’:VQ1v%: any quesiiem sf E322; much lass
1S11§_”§.§§§i3i”ii’§f£;i§__(§3;i€é$.3t§Gf}; of 33%; avazraniiztzg iniarfer:::Im€ Egg:
V VV _ t.1″:iSf”‘sf3os;t:i*9£;v ‘ _Nea fioubt, ‘€116 respcndaat ,1 fiefandani has
fixed 3:13; earideailee mfara {ha ma: Saufi; ‘:9
.’ $:–:§sfa:1:ia:€ its cantentien that the roads were mat
% zfagmea in the Land af am piairztiif. mwever, this étsééf is
&/
7
far the piaintiff {G appraach the apprepriate azzthofity
for deiivering the ailottati iand for which the Vahlfi has
best: coflected, and in the event of failure, the piaintiff
has to wark out its remedy before the apgrijrpriats
forum. However, the plaintiff is net finfitkzé’ ‘ ‘1°s;é’:Lf’— _
declaration as souglfi: in the SL1i{Ji11»Vi$13e’_–‘(.}f”i}?g€: failetitha, K ”
{hers was 1’18 conciucied contraai-:4be:§$;x2<*:'en'TTt11<: xiii
respect of grant of a1temafi$*5. iaiici :e{;L1ii.}1é.x 1€:§1't'–V~£r;"; the * L'
area of the iand utiiizgceé f9r_..ffi§1~zI;atjon éf' –:*.Qa¢:1;53 in the
:"=\\\,.a*\*¥r:..;:§'i ' 3 — -.
ma ta the p12iir;t’:j£E’.”
of tha i’I}.att€”:i”, E
see 1:20 p€wé:f1siT£f_:j:”,.–~iiireguharity c:<;2mmitt,ed
£33; tha m_L_1r1:.s i}f.i’;ai:&fA1:ii;<;flf:..1€ss stzbstantiai questien cf law.
. 8. Heme; the appaai £3 éisniisseé.
Sd/-
JUDGE