The appellant owned to parcels of land with a river in between the two parcels. The respondent was a neighbour of the plaintiff and owned a large nearby property. The plaintiff meant that the respondent had entered into his land and started excavating the bank of the river, constructing a dam. The plaintiff meant that this was not only contrary to his riparian rights, but also a danger to human life.

In the previous instance, the defendant was stated that he had been granted full permission by the Ministry of Water Development and was given his rights recognised by the Court. The appellant therefore appealed the case.

The respondent meant that the river was owned by the government and that he did not need permission from the appellant. However, the Court found that there was no doubt that the lands belonged to the appellant. The Court therefore concluded that the trespass of the appellant’s land was unlawful and set aside the previous judgment.