In this appeal, it is clear that the plaintiffs-respondents utterly failed to prove their title to the land which they claimed in paragraph 1 of their writ of summons. Quite apart from this fact, the native trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to title to the disputed land on the defendant-appellant. At the close of the case, the appellant submitted that the respondents had failed to establish their claim, and that they had therefore made no case against him to answer, but the court proceeded to enter judgment for the respondents, granting them title to the land. On the evidence as to the respondents’ first claim it is my view that the trial court erred in ruling out the submission of the appellant, and that it further erred in giving judgment for the respondents as it did.
In this court, counsel for the respondents did not seek to support the trial court’s judgment in any way. He in fact urged that the whole judgment should be set aside, not on the gro…