ISAAC LOMOH AND MR. YAKAH v. INUSAH KASSIM

Reliefs Sought

1. Recovery of cash sum of GH5,000.00 being damages of plaintiffs food crops

2. Order for defendant to prevent animals from entering plaintiffs farm

3. Any other orders the court may deem fit

4. Costs

Brief facts

Plaintiffs are farmers, whilst defendant is self-employed. Both parties are residents of Osino. Plaintiff’s case are that, they are owners of over five (5) acres of farmland at Osino and have cultivated cocoa, cassava, maize, yam, cocoyam, plantain and pear on it. Defendant owns sheep that have entered into plaintiffs farms and destroyed all the food crops on it.

According to P1 who gave evidence on behalf of P2, about 2years ago, he observed that some sheep had destroyed food crops on his farm and other adjoining ones including P2’s farm. Through his own investigation, it revealed that defendant’s sheep were responsible for the destruction. Having visited the farm and witnessed the destruction caused by his sheep, the two negotiated on how much plaintiff be compensated. According to plaintiff an amount of GHC1500 was agreed whereas defendant says it was GHC500 that was agreed, which he has paid to plaintiff. That settlement notwithstanding, defendant’s sheep continued to destroy crops on farmlands until P1 confronted him again and defendant said he had relocated the sheep. However, adjoining farmers including P2 complained about continued destruction of food crops by defendant’s sheep. Plaintiff says he took photographs of defendant’s sheep grazing on his and P2’s farm and destroying their food crops as well.

According to P1, together with P2, they lodged a complaint at the Sanitation and environmental department who paid a visit to their respective farms and witnessed the sheep on their farms. Defendant was furious when confronted by the officers, and taken around the farm to witness the destruction caused by his sheep. Defendant later apologized through his brothers, but the nuisance never abated.

On 13th/05/23, plaintiff says he visited his farm and saw defendant’s sheep destroying his food crops. Plaintiff said he took video and photograph evidence of the presence of, and destruction caused by defendant’s sheep on that date.

Issues For Determination

Whether or not enough evidence has been adduced to prove that defendant’s sheep are responsible for the continued destruction of food crops on P1 and P2’s farmland. It is clear from the evidences adduced by both P1 and P2 that there had been an initial destruction of