The Plaintiff sued the
First Defendant for dismantling a billboard for purposes of advertisements
erected by the Plaintiff and erecting its own structure to the dismay and
detriment of the Plaintiff’s interest. The Plaintiff prayed for various
declarations and orders. The Defendants stated that the site was originally
owned by a third party who signed an agreement with the Plaintiff for the sale
of assets which included the suit site. The Plaintiff did not fulfil the
conditions precedent to the agreement, the agreement terminated and the site
was sold to the First Defendant. The Defendant also claimed ownership of the
site by virtue of the court decision. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff
had no right to erect its structure there and the Defendants were legally
entitled to remove the Plaintiff’s structure which was wrongfully erected
anyway. In its reply, the Plaintiff contended that it had owned the site prior
to the sale agreement between it and the third party, and so the site had never
belonged to the third party and could not have been sold to the First Defendant
and was not part of the assets allegedly sold to the Plaintiff, and later to
the First Defendant. The court considered, among other things, who, in civil
cases, bears the burden of proof, who was the rightful licensee to the
advertisement site and the question of trespass to land.