The court found that the plaintiffs did not authorise the 2nd defendant to charge the suit land, and the 1st defendant failed to prove otherwise. The evidence showed irregularities and inconsistencies in the authorisation letter, signatures, and identity card numbers, and the 1st defendant did not call the 2nd defendant or other relevant witnesses to prove the plaintiffs' consent. The application for Land Control Board consent was irregular and not made by the true owners or their identifiable agents, rendering the consent and subsequent charge void ab initio. The court distinguished this case from those where constructive trust or proprietary estoppel could apply, as there was no common intention or good faith between the parties. Consequently, the 3rd party charge was declared null and void, the encumbrance cancelled, and the 1st defendant permanently injuncted from exercising statutory power of sale over the suit land. The court declined to award damages for trespass for want of jurisdiction, but awarded costs to the plaintiffs.