The court unanimously ruled in favor of Rawti, noting that the trial judge erred in accepting Digicel’s expert evidence over that of the estate’s surveyor. It was determined by the judges that the tower was located on Rawti's parcel of land, as noted in a 1960 deed, meaning that Digicel was liable for trespass throughout the period the tower remained. The case dates back to 2006, when Digicel built a tower on the land via a lease with Miguel Mechanical Services Ltd. Digicel thought that Miguel owned the site, not Rawti.