KORSAH C.J: There is no merit in the substantive appeal, and Counsel has acted wisely in not continuing to argue it.
It appears, however, that in the course of the proceedings in the Court below, the learned judge at a certain stage erroneously gave himself jurisdiction, and granted special leave to appeal from an interlocutory order, in which an appeal did not lie to the Land Court. He further fixed the same date for the hearing of the substantive appeal as for the hearing of the purported interlocutory appeal.
Even if the Court had had power to grant special leave, it was incumbent thereafter to impose conditions. This the learned Judge did not do; no conditions were in fact fulfilled, nor could any conditions be fulfilled. Therefore no interlocutory appeal could have been pending in the Court on the date which the Court fixed.
In giving judgment, the learned Judge expressed himself as having merged the interlocutory appeal with the substantive appeal, when in fact there was only one …