-
"From the foregoing findings and reasoning of this Court, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff has proved his claim on the balance of probability as required by the law. All his witnesses have testified to the effect that the Defendant went into his farm and dug some craters and for that he could not cultivate the place, I need not go into the elementary meaning of trespass, destructions and mischief. This was done not within the 50 metres right of way but inside the farm of the Plaintiff, what was done within 50 metres right of way has been compensated....................
-
I believe the Plaintiff ought to have display (sic) something before the Court to show and or give it a clear (sic) of what he was earning from the farm and not to make a sweeping statement of the amount he is earning. Moreso, it is not the whole farm that is being destroyed by the Plaintiff (sic) but just a portion of it ……………………….
-
On the whole I hold that the Plaintiff has proved his 1st claim against the Defendant but will definitely not be entitled to the claim of N5m as he is claiming for reasons enumerated above.
-
I finally enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of N500,000.00 being general damages for trespass, loss of use and mischief done to the economic trees planted by the Plaintiff in his farmland Kaduna-Abuja Road.
-
Based on the consensus of both panics and their Counsel, I hereby order that the Defendant shall fill with laterite the 4 craters dug by it inside the said farmland of the Plaintiff." The sum of N5,000 costs was awarded to the Respondent."
My understanding of what the learned trial Judge said in the above extract is that, in respect of the 1st claim, the Plaintiff has proved the act of trespass on his land but did not establish the claim for special damages done to his economic trees yet he is entitled to N500,000 as "general damages for trespass, loss of use and mischief done to the economic trees." And in respect of the second head of claim, the Defendant is to refill the pits dug on the plaintiffs land based on the agreement of the parties.
The Appellant did not take kindly to the decision in respect of the first claim adjudging him to pay the sum of N500,000.00 to the Respondent . Consequently, he lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division in respect of that part of the decision, though in the amended notice of appeal, it is erroneously indicated that the appeal is against the whole decision. The amended notice is predicated on two grounds of appeal viz. (i) that the learned Judge erred in law when he awarded the sum of N500.000.00 to the Plaintiff as general damages after holding that the claim for trespass and destruction of economic trees failed and (ii) that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he awarded the sum of N500,000.00 damages to the Plaintiff/Respondent with N5,000.00 costs.
In a split decision, Salami JCA observed that the Appellant did not indicate from which of the two grounds of appeal his sole issue was formulated thereby rendering it abandoned. On ground 2, it observed that the said ground did not raise any issue of quantum of damages, the Court therefore struck out the sole issue for determination and all the arguments canvassed thereunder.
Referring to the order of the trial Court, where it said:-
-
"I finally enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of N500,000 being general damages for trespass, loss of use and mischief done to the economic trees planted by the Plaintiff on his farmland along Kaduna-Abuja Road."
It held that the words "loss of use" in the said judgment is an accidental slip. Upon the foregoing premises, the Appellant's appeal was dismissed with N4,000 costs.
It therefore dismissed the appeal.
The Appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court.
