Sithy Makeena And Others v. Kuraisha And Others – sllr 2006 volume 2 page 341

In the case between Sithy Makeena and others (Plaintiffs) and Kuraisha and others (Defendants/Respondents), the court addressed the determination of whether the respondents qualified as statutory tenants under the plaintiffs or were trespassers subject to ejectment. The matter also involved the issue of whether the Urban Development Authority (UDA) should be added as a necessary party to the proceedings. The decision established that the dispute centered solely on the tenancy status of the respondents, finding that the UDA was not a necessary party within the context of the Rei Vindicatio action. Reliance was placed on the Civil Procedure Code and the Land Acquisition Act, specifically with regard to the interpretation of Gazette notifications as legal evidence. It was emphasized that wher