Facts
The appellant's Right of Occupancy over a piece ofland was purportedly revoked by the President and the land granted to the respondent. It was not in dispute that the President could only have revoked the Right by giving the appellant Notice of Revocation. There was no firm evidence that such notice was given to the appellant.Accordingly, in a suit the appellant instituted in the Resident Magistrate's Court the trial magistrate held that the appellant was still the rightful occupier of the plot. On appeal to the High Court, that decision was reversed. The decision of the High Court was essentially based on a report prepared by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Lands, which recommended to the President that the appellant's Right be revoked.
That report was however not adduced in evidence. The crucial issue, on further appeal, was whether the High Court was right to act on a document that was not before the Trial Court.
Held: (i) Though a first appellate Court has power to re-evaluate the evidence adduced at the trial and make factual findings therefrom, it cannot make such findings based on a document that was not before the Trial Court.
(ii) The report prepared by the Principal Secretary, though a public document, was not a document of which judicial notice could be taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment