(oral)

Gopal Sri Ram JCA (delivering the judgment of the court):

This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the appellants' application to remove the respondent's caveats. In brief three grounds are advanced in support of the appeal. We do not think that we will do any injustice to Mr. Gomez, counsel for the appellants, if we summarise his submissions as follows:

(a) First, that the learned judge failed to judicially appreciate the facts relevant to the respondent's claim to have a caveat lodged against the lands in question.

(b) Second, that the learned judge misdirected herself as to the proper approach to be adopted when hearing an application of this sort.

(c) Third, that the learned judge did not attach any or any sufficient weight to the delay by the respondent in commencing proceedings to enforce his claim under the caveats.

The facts which form the basis of this appeal are not in serious dispute. According to the respondent, and this is not denied by the appellants, he was until 1975 the registered proprietor of 1/3 undivided share in three pieces of land held under EMR 697 for Lot 1823, EMR 703 for Lot 1829 and EMR 712 for Lot 1838 all