Loss of face, page-4

I respectfully disagree. SMM believed all along process has not been handled correctly and they stood their ground over it. This court case proves that their thoughts were correct. Their view has been vindicated. It does not help them get control of the land but it does show their original thinking was correct. I cannot see how this can be construed as a loss of face.

As, due to their maximum allotment holdings, you have to wonder why SMM proceeded. They were never qualified to have the holding - and they sure as hell knew it. I am wondering if it is a set up for a larger legal battle with the Government.