The appellate court found that the respondent failed to prove the existence of a customary trust over the suit land. Although the land originally belonged to the parties' deceased father, the respondent's pleadings and evidence were inconsistent, particularly regarding occupation and use of the suit land. The respondent admitted to residing on and using parcel No. 1211, which was transferred to him in accordance with the deceased's wishes. The court held that mere familial relationship and original ownership by the father do not automatically create a customary trust; clear evidence of intention and benefit to other family members is required. The trial magistrate erred by venturing into issues of succession and awarding land to non-parties, which is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court and should be addressed in probate proceedings. The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs.