AKIWUMI, J.S.C.: The second plaintiff, a paternal nephew of the first plaintiff joined the first plaintiff in instituting this action. It is clear from the evidence on record that the second plaintiff had no locus standi and ought not to have been a party to the suit. The defendant moved the native court for his ejection from the action on the grounds that he had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit and that he was not a party to the instrument dated the 9th February, 1956, which is being sought to be declared null and void. He however resisted the defendant’s application and was wrongfully allowed by the trial court to remain a party. His evidence consisted of what the first plaintiff or some other person had told him and it being hearsay we decided to ignore it as inadmissible. [His lordship then referred to the facts and continued:]
To succeed in a claim for a declaration that a conveyance duly executed is a nullity, it is essential to prove one or the other of the followin…