will acquire joint ownership of suoh benefit.

* Court I Flman, C.J. and Sandes, J

partit1C1l, an whioh the plaintiff's riow so s~rongly rely as affording
the CIl17 possible explanaUcm of their story that the trees were
planted b)" Kohamed Jlusa "outside" the partnership, and the gravest
:doubt is thrOlGl upcm. the possibility that such a partiticm took place
b)" the faot that it was not set up in the oourse of the earlier dispute
as to the land.

lhless this partiticm existed there is a very strong presumpt1cm
that IUlTthing planted on the land held in partnership was for the
benefit of the partnership, and the plaintiff's, to prove that the
trees were the sole property of Mohamed Musa, "ould have to set up a
very clear case. There is nothing of the sort here, and there can be
no question of ~ acquisition b,y long possession in view of the .
relationship between the parties. This court is in full agreement
with the finding that these trees are the joint property of the
parties, and with the justice of the deoisicm giv.en by the learned
Judge of the High Court. There is no merit in this application which
is dismissed with oosts for the defendants •

Sandes! J.: I ooncur.

Revision.

June :1Ql' .J:_g;.lll:, '~,nll:llmtlil!' .C.J"_;J~,i::'. ."hi::: cU.3i',rtc concorna n nunbez-

of date trees situated in Plots 37 and 37(1) Hosh Bannage., Shendi

District. The land itself has already been the subject of protracted
dispute, and the parties, who are relatives, are now litigating an to
the ownership of the trees on the land.

Plot No. 37, registered in the names of the defendants, contains
14 date trees in dispute and in Plot 37(1) there are 160 The former
plot is now registered in the names of the defendants - the plaintiffs
claiming the trees thereon_o The latter plot is registered in the names
of the plaintiffs the defendants counter-claiming for the t:-ees on that
plot together with those in the plot registered in their names. P:-'iox'
to the litigation referred to above the \'lhole of Plots 37 and 37(1)

were registered, or apparently registered, in the names of the dof'endarrt s ,
and it was by virtue of the decision in the case that the plair.tiffs
beoame registered as owners of Plot 37(1).

In the District Court b DC-GS-IO-1938 (Shc.-:.di) t he plain.tiffs
(applicants) were sucoessful in their claim to the 14 trees on the_l

land of defendants and also retained o\'mership of the 16 treen on

their land •. en an application for revision to the Judge of t he High
Court,. Northern Province this decision.Has set aside in HC-REV-48~1940,
and the 30 date trees found to be the joint property of the parties.

It was further held that the date trees on each of the plots shou:d
remain the property of the respective registered ownez-s , and the
plaintiffs, for equality, were ordered to p~ LE.3 to the defend&lts,

a majority of the trees being on their land. rhe plaintiffs now ask
for revision of this decree.

The learned. judge, in arriving at his decision, found as a fact
that the date trees were held by the ancestors of the parties in a
partnership, in which the plaintiffs' ancestor Mohamed Musa planted
and tended. the trees that wez-e finanoed. by funds found by his partner
Ali Hassan.

The plaintiffs would have us believe that they were planted fOl"
Mohamed. l<lusa's sale benefit on land whioh had. been partitioned. by tht>
partners. There is nothing to support the existenoe of this u11offi,=:ia1