Richard Malanjum J:

Preliminary

[1] The case before me began by way of an originating summons as the plaintiffs were seeking for certain declarations. However, as the matter proceeded, it was converted as though by writ action. Hence, the usual pleadings were filed by the respective parties. The defendants have also put up a counter-claim and pray for several relief.

[2] From the statement of claim of the plaintiffs, it is obvious that it was the existence of the caveat of the 1st defendants on the subject land CL. 085311075 (the subject land) which prompted this present action. However, it is not in dispute that on 15 May 1997 the subject land was duly registered in the name of the 1st plaintiffs. Consequently, a substantial portion of the prayers sought for by the plaintiffs are no longer relevant. And this probably the reason for the learned counsel for the defendants to submit that the action of the plaintiffs should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs disagreed contending that the action should be maintained since there is a counter-claim and the effect of some of the declarations sought for has a bearing on the transaction between the defendants on the subje