Facts
The respondents sued the appellant in the primary court and were awardedcompe~sation for crops destroyed by the appellant's cattle that had trespassed Into the shambas. The appellant's appeal to the district court was dismissed, hence thIS appeal. Before the High Court it was contended that cattle trespass or crop destruction was a common law tort and therefore the primary court had no Jurisdiction over the matter. It was also argued that there was no evidence that the appellant's cattle had trespassed into the respondents' shambas and destroyed crops there in.
Held:
(i) While cattle trespass and crop destruction is indeed a Common law tort, it is also a tort known under customary law and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of primary courts; .
(ii) There was overwhelming evidence that the appellant's cattle, not less than 62 number, had trespassed into the respondents' shambas and
destroyed crops.
Held:
(i) While cattle trespass and crop destruction is indeed a Common law tort, it is also a tort known under customary law and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of primary courts; .
(ii) There was overwhelming evidence that the appellant's cattle, not less than 62 number, had trespassed into the respondents' shambas and
destroyed crops.
No comments:
Post a Comment