SONO v. KWADWO

JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.

By his writ of summons the plaintiff claimed from the defendant:

"(a) the sum of ¢455,250 being damages for cash crops destroyed by the defendant as a result of the defendant's timber felling operations in the plaintiff's cocoa and coffee farm situate at Tetter on Dormaa stool land, whereof the sum of ¢450,000 represents 30,000 matured cocoa trees at ¢15 per tree; ¢2,400 representing 120 oil palm trees at ¢15 per tree; ¢400 representing 40 coffee trees at ¢10 per tree; ¢1,500 representing 150 plantain suckers at ¢10 per tree; ¢800 representing 20 kola trees at ¢40 per tree; and ¢150 representing garden egg plants.

(b) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or servants or both, assigns and successors in title from causing damage to the plaintiff's said cocoa farm."

In the course of the trial the plaintiff moved the court to have his writ of summons amended to include a claim for:

"(c) General damages for capsid rehabilitation and other incidental damage suffered as a result of the defendant's timber felling operations in his said cocoa farm."

The application was granted as prayed and the plaintiff amended his writ accordingly.

On the pleadings, the defendant admitted felling timber trees which caused damage to cocoa and other crops on the plaintiff's land. It is not disputed that the defendant has a valid timber concession which covered the area where the timber trees were felled. Liability having thus been admitted the only issue left to be determined was how much the plaintiff was entitled to by way of compensation for the damage caused to his cocoa trees and other crops. Both parties agreed to have a valuation officer appointed to assess the damage caused. [p.401] A team of valuation officers from the Lands Department was appointed to go with the parties to the area to find out the actual damage caused. An inspection was accordingly carried out on 3 July 1979; the findings are contained in a report which was subsequently tendered in evidence as exhibit X. The damage was assessed at ¢7,351.70.

Counsel for the plaintiff did not agree to this figure and contended that wrong rates had been used in the assessment of the damage. On the capsid damage, the report stated: "Expert comment on capsid damage and rehabilitation of damaged crops could best be done by the agriculturists. You are accordingly advised to refer this part of the case to them."

It became necessary therefore to call further evidence. The p