<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>SMYLY, C.J.</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Section II of Caput 87 of the Concessions Ordinance, it is provided that no concession shall be certified as valid (sub-section 2), unless the court is satisfied that the proper persons were parties to the concession, and that it may be reasonably presumed that they understood the nature and terms thereof, and (sub-section 3) if obtained by fraudulent or other improper means.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Counsel for appellant has argued that the appellant only agreed with the grantee for the falls but not for any land, and that the lease (exhibit “D”) had not been explained to them, and the two sub-sections referred to above had not been complied with, and that the concession could not stand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As against these submissions we have the trial judge finding as a fact “that the document ‘D’ was read over and explained twice at Himan, and that the chief and his people quite understood it, and agreed, and that they signed again at Chama. It was twice again read over and explained to them after the alterati…</p>