The court held that the issue of whether Land Control Board consent was obtained is evidentiary and should be determined at full trial, not at the interlocutory stage. On limitation, the court found that while claims based on contract are subject to a six-year limitation, the Plaintiffs' claim also included adverse possession, which is not statute barred in this context. Regarding procedure, although adverse possession claims are typically brought by originating summons, the court emphasized that substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities, citing Article 159 of the Constitution and relevant case law. Therefore, the application to strike out the plaint was dismissed as lacking merit.