Appeal from Judgment of the
Court of a Provincial
Commissioner exercising
Appellate Jurisdiction.
Claim for damages for
trespass-Original judgment upset
by Provincial Commissioner on
facts.
Held: A judgment in a land case
of a native Tribunal should not
be reversed unless clearly shown
to be wrong; appeal allowed and
original judgment restored.
There is no necessity to set out
the facts of this case.
K. A. Bossman
for Appellant.
A. Sawyerr
for Respondent.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, C.]., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST, AND WEBBER,
c.J., SIERRA LEONE.
In this case the claim before
the native Tribunal of Alavanyo
was for damages for trespass,
the real dispute being as to the
position of the boundary between
the land of the respective
parties. It was common ground
that each party had had
neighbouring farms for many
years. The plaintiff brought his
action becaus~, as he alleged,
the defendant had crossed the
boundary and planted cocoa on
plaintiff's side, thus extending
his, the defendant's, cocoa farm
into plaintiff's land. The
Tribunal, after hearing the
evidence and viewing the land,
decided the facts to be' as
alleged by plaintiff, and
considering that the trespass
was due to the boundaries being
illdefined, demarcated them
clearly. It did not award
plaintiff any damages for the
trespass, but ordered that he
should get one-third share of
the cocoa crop gathered from the
area of his land upon which the
farm encroached.
On appeal to the Akpini State
Council, that Council, after
viewing the land and hearing the
parties, but without taking any
fresh evidence, reversed the
decision of the trial Court and
gave judgment for defendant. On
appeal to the Provincial
Commissioner that judgmentwas
upheld and the plaintiff now
brings this appeal to this
Court.
It is well established that the
judgment in a land case of a
native Tribunal which has seen
and heard the witnesses and
viewed the iand should not be
reversed unless it can be
clearly shown to be wrong.
Applying this principle to the
present case we are of opinion
that so far from the decision of
the trial Tribunal being shown
to