CHEGU vs. DAGOMBA [1977]DLHC1300

Date	1977-11-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1300

EDWARD WIREDU J.

MUMUNI BAWUMIA FOR THE APPELLANT.

R. I. ALHASSAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLHC1300
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >CHEGU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DAGOMBA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 1 GLR 412<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 NOVEMBER
1976<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MUMUNI BAWUMIA FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. I. ALHASSAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of the Yendi District Court Grade II by which the
court upheld the claim by the plaintiff-respondent (who shall hereafter be
referred to simply as the plaintiff) against the defendant-appellant (who shall
also hereafter be referred to as the defendant for “compensatory damages of
¢400.00 for the defendant’s cattle destroyed the plaintiff’s farm crops to wit:
guinea corn, maize, after several repeated warnings to the defendant by the
plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case may be stated as follows: The parties to this suit are
adjoining land owners. Their two lands are separated by a valley. The evidence
shows that on the plaintiff’s farm were grown some food crops made up of guinea
corn and maize. The defendant also owned some herds of cattle on his farm which
used to go and graze in the valley. It is the plaintiff’s complaint that the
cows of the defendant had been straying onto his farm causing destruction to
his crops and that various protests to the defendant about this had not been
heeded to by him. He therefore by his action in the court below claimed
monetary compensation for the wanton act of destruction to his crops caused by
the cows of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant resists the plaintiff’s claim and for his part denied any trespass or
destruction of the plaintiff’s food crops by his cows. He contended that if any
cows ever strayed onto the farm of the plaintiff they were not his.<o:p></o:p>The
issues posed for determination here are simple issues of fact, namely: (a)
whether there had been any destruction of the plaintiff’s food crops on his
farm and (b) if so whether they were caused by the cows of the defendant. The
burden of proving these of course rested on the plaintiff on the preponderance
of evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff called evidence by himself and two other witnesses whilst the
defendant also called evidence by himself and two other witnesses. The trial
magistrate in what strikes me on its face as a well considered judgment
resolved only the issue of entry onto the plaintiff’s land by the cows of the
defendant leaving unresolved the crucial matter of the destruction of the food
crops thereon. He then proceeded to award the plaintiff ¢300.00 for trespass.
It is from this decision that the present appeal has been brought originally on
the usual omnibus ground “the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the appeal, learned counsel sought the leave of the court and was
permitted to argue two further additional grounds, namely; (1) that the trial
magistrate erred in law in awarding ¢300.00 damages to the plaintiff when there
was no basis for such an award and (2) that the trial magistrate failed to
appreciate the true nature of the plaintiff’s claim which was clearly stated on
his writ and therefore erred in treating the case solely as cattle trespass.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
first in support of ground (1) of the additional grounds, learned counsel for
the appellant attacked the award of ¢300.00 damages in favour of the plaintiff.
According to counsel no evidence was led to establish the quantity of food
crops destroyed or their value. This according to learned counsel destroyed the
basis of any compensatory award in favour of the plaintiff and especially so as
there was no visit to the locus to ascertain the extent of the destruction. In
support of ground (2) learned counsel argued that the plaintiff ‘s claim as
could be ascertained from both his writ and the evidence was a claim for
damages limited solely to the alleged destruction of his food crops. The trial
magistrate according to counsel detracted his attention from this and treated
the </main>