BCC 274/2006

This case involved a request for confirmation of ownership of land and title registration. It was wrongly argued the expert's evidence should not be used as he was associated with the defendant and had not taken an oath. As there was no evidence of cultivation or seizure since 1966 ownership could not be confirmed.

Background

Some claimants filed a case against a defendant before the civil court requesting the validation of their ownership of disputed land and the registration of the land under their names in accordance with their shares.

The court dismissed the case.

The claimants appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The claimants appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and said in their grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. It was said that the court had established its ruling based on a survey of an expert who belongs to the defendant and the expert did not take an oath.