ROGER KORSAH J.
The law, as I understand it, is that if M. D. Namih perpetrated a fraud on Cobina (with a C) Kessie, proceedings to avoid the transaction may be taken at any time while the influence still operated on the mind of Cobina (with a C) Kessie. But after the influence has ceased to persist, that is, after Cobina (with a C) Kessie in 1949 had demanded, obtained and read exhibits A and B in which appeared the recitals that he had assigned the whole of his interest to M. D. Namih, he was enjoined by the law to commence proceedings within a reasonable time: see Bullock v. Lloyds Bank Ltd. [1955] Ch. 317; otherwise he must be taken to abide by the transaction and confirm it: see Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch.D. 145, C.A. In my view, 27 years is too long a time to wait before commencing proceedings to vitiate the transaction between him and Namih on the grounds of fraud, if there was ever any fraud.
Now in exhibit C, which is the original indenture of lease between the Government …