KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL C.J., SIERRA LEONE. Where is no substance in any of the grounds of appeal in this case and the judgment in favour of the claimant must be substantially upheld; but it must be altered in form and clarified in regard to the land to Which it relates. In regard to the form it is to be regretted that In the rules of Court there is an inconsistency in the terms of the form of summons set out at pages 194 and 195 of Volume 1 of the Laws for use under Order 44, rule 25 as compared with the terms of the rule itself. By the rule the relief which should be given is release of the property attached from attachment but in the form of summons the relief claimed is that the property seized should be declared and adjudged the property of the claimant a very different thing, enc amendment of the form-which is obviously desirable-we are of opinion that in this and similar cases the re1ief which should be given is that prescribed by the, rule instead of as was done in this case, judgment merely being given for the claimant, which, in this case, presumably means that the property seized was adjudged to be the property of the claimant.
As regards the description of the land to which the claim relates, it is clear that the land in dispute was that in the hands of Alfred Robina Dade as Manager and Receiver and that it lies between the land of Ofei Kwabena and Kwame Tete. It would be impossible from the description in the claim (which is probably inaccurate), the documentary evidence and the testimony of the witnesses to identify the land with sufficient particularity to give a declaration of title, but we think that the land attached is sufficiently identified for an order releasing it from attachment to be made.
We accordingly order that the judgment of the Court below shall be varied by substituting for the judgment for the claimant an order that the land attached, namely the land in the hands of Alfred Kobina Dade as Manager and Receiver, be released from attachment.
The order of the Court below as to costs stands good. As to costs in this Court, we have considered whether in view of the alteration to the judgment which we have directed we should deprive the respondent of his costs, but we have decided that, as he has substantially succeeded, there is no justification for doing so.
The respondent is awarded costs in this Court assessed at £33 1s.