The defendant/respondent is a sub-lessee of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the plaintiff's property consisting of a main building, a block annex compris¬ing a basement, ground floor of a 4-door shop together with two boys quar¬ters. The plaintiff retained some portion of the block annex. The sub-lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was tendered as Exhibit P2; Clause 2(c) of Exhibit P2 reads as follows:

During the currency of the sub-lease, the defendant by Exhibit P.3 applied to the plaintiff for permission to fence his own building and also permission to put another floor on top of the showroom by the side of the main building.

The plaintiff by Exhibit P4 inter alia gave his consent to the defendant to fence his holding on the premises provided all the lines of demarcation were wholly agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the erection of the fence."

The learned trial Judge found on the evidence before him that there was consultation before the erection of the fence and rejected plaintiff's denial.

On the issues coined, the learned trial Judge after considering the evidence before him, dismissed the appellant's claims holding that the appellant's claim that he did not agree on the line of demarcation was false. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.