Manye v. Muhere (PC) Civ. App. M-141-70; 10/9/71; Kisanga Ag. J.

 Manye v. Muhere (PC) Civ. App. M-141-70; 10/9/71; Kisanga Ag. J.

The appellant successfully claimed compensation in respect of damage done by the respondent to his coffee shamba. He was awarded Shs. 1,400. On appeal to the district court the award was reduced to Shs. 288. The appellant appealed against the reduction. It was accepted by both courts below that the respondent’s cattle entered the appellant’s shamba and caused damage to some 28 coffee trees. An

Agricultural officer who was called by the plaintiff testified in the primary court that he visited the shamba and assessed the damages at Shs. 1230/= i.e. 23 coffee trees could yield coffee worth Shs. 1230/= a year. The primary court disregarded this evidence. The district magistrate reduced the claim on the grounds that the Agricultural Officer gave no reasons for assessing the damage at Shs. 1230/= and that the primary court magistrate in awarding Shs. 1400/= did not visit the scene to inspect the extent of the damage. He himself visited the scene and questioned the appellant who said that he bought the seedlings in 1967 at -/20 each and that he paid Shs. 30/- to have the shamba spread with manure before planting it with the coffee seedlings. On the basis of this information the district magistrate assessed the damage at Shs. 4/- per coffee tree. In arriving at the conclusion he said that compensation is making good a loss and it should not be a fine.

            Held: “[T]he Agricultural Officer assessed the damage at Shs. 1230/= this officer personally inspected the shamba and saw the damage. The primary court magistrate however did not visit the scene and therefore it is not apparent why the primary court preferred to award Shs. 1400/= instead of Shs. 1230/= as assessed by a person who actually saw the extent of the damage and who can be considered to have skilled knowledge in the matter. The award of Shs. 1230/= could not be regarded as a fine because according to [the agricultural officer] this represents the value of the crop which the appellant stood to lose during the year of the damage. On the other hand the district court magistrate appears to have based his assessment on the cost of purchasing the seedlings in 1967 and the cost of manuring the shamba before planting it with the seedlings in 1967. such assessment however does not seem to take into account such factors as the cost of clearing and cultivating the shamba before planting it, the cost of maintaining the plants from 1967 to the date of the damage and the capacity of the trees to produce; in other words it does not take into account the market value of the plants at the time of the damage. To the extent of such omission therefore I think that the assessment by the district magistrate at Shs. 288/- is patently inadequate and that the assessment by [the agricultural officer] which seems to reflect the value of the trees at the time of damage should be preferred.” (2) The appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant is to recover compensation from the respondent in the sum of Shs. 1230/=.