n
CaseLaw
Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of the land. They claimed compen¬sation for things destroyed on the land by the 1st defendants who entered the land with the authority of the 2nd and 3rd defendants who also claimed to be owners of the land.
The learned trial judge found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were indeed the owners of the land and that the plaintiffs were customary tenants of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and accordingly awarded them (the plaintiffs) compensation/damages as claimed.
The plaintiffs appeal against the dismissal of their claim for declaration of title was withdrawn at the hearing of the appeal but the cross-appeal by the 1st defendants/appellants against the order of payment of compensation and dam-ages was argued.
The appellant contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any compensation as they sued as owners and not as customary tenants in an action which was essentially one for trespass.