CHEGU v. DAGOMBA

JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.

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 [p.413]) 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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel sought the leav