The court found that the relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent was governed by the unique coastal concept of 'house without land', akin to a lease where the house owner pays ground rent but does not acquire title to the land. The appellant defaulted on ground rent, entitling the 1st respondent to levy distress for rent. However, the inclusion of a purported purchase price for the land in the distress and subsequent auction was unlawful, as there was no agreement for sale and such a sum is not recoverable as rent under the Distress for Rent Act. The sale of the appellant's house, which included the unlawful component, was therefore illegal. The court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation equivalent to the value of the unfinished house (Kshs. 400,000), less the ground rent arrears (Kshs. 58,000), and that the 1st respondent should bear this cost. The judgment of the lower court was set aside and substituted accordingly. Each party was to bear their own costs.