Gopal Sri Ram JCA:-

Preliminary

[1] There are two appeals before us arising from the same suit. One is by the plaintiff; the other is by the defendant. The plaintiff complains that it was not awarded the sums it was justly entitled to. The defendant says that the plaintiff should have received nothing.

[2] The action is essentially one for breach of contract. But there is also an alternative claim by the plaintiff for the breach of an express trust. The defendant, apart from defending the action also mounted a counterclaim claiming a number of declarations which I will deal with at the appropriate place in this judgment.

[3] The action was originally tried by Steve Shim J (as he then was) before whom a substantial part of the case was completed. What remained of the action was tried before the learned trial judge against whose orders these appeals have been preferred. But nothing turns on this. For, it must be said at once in fairness to the trial judge who completed the trial that he correctly held that the case essentially depends on the construction of certain clauses in the contracts entered into between the parties and the interpretation of unchallenged facts and circ