Isidori Ndethnga v. Eugen Mangalili, (PC) Civ App. 22-A-1967, 14/12/1968, Platt J.

Isidori Ndethnga v. Eugen Mangalili, (PC) Civ App. 22-A-1967, 14/12/1968, Platt J.

            The respondent and the appellant share a common boundary along which respondent (Eugen) had plated trees. The appellant alleging that these trees, or their branches on being blown by the wind had falled on his land and had damaged his coffee and banana trees, sued Eugen for compensation for the damage caused. On appeal, his claim was rejected by the District Court of Kilimanjaro at Moshi.

                        Held: …….. The real question seems to me to be whether at customary law a person who plants a boundary tree is liable if the tree itself or any part of it falls on his neighbour’s land causing damage therein. The argument seems to fall under two headings: (a) whether a boundary tree which causes damage, is damage for which compensation can be claimed; (b) whether damage caused by a wind –blown tree, is damage for which compensation can be claimed. These questions arise out of the arguments which were first raised in the District Court. Therefore, as the court was without the advantage of the opinion of the assessors at first instance, two Generally speaking boundary trees are common property and if a tree itself or a branch falls on to the land of the party who has not planted it, that person may use it as timber. He has no right to compensation if the tree is diseased and falls by itself or if it is blown down by abnormal wind. Should the person who planted the tree remove the fallen tree or branch from his neighbour’s land that would be an interference for which compensation could be claimed. It was, consequently, said that Isidori could claim for the value of the timber if he was deprived of it, but he could not claim for he loss of his coffee or banana trees. As this opinion was shared equally firmly by both assessors, I accept their opinion. It follows that regarding boundary trees there is no notion amongst the people of this area, following what in the general law would be called negligence or strict liability for harbouring dangerous objects which have escaped on a neighbour’s land. That is probably due to the idea of the joint ownership of the trees. Accepting the customary law as explained by the assessors I hold that the District Court came to the right conclusion in dismissing Isidori’s claim.” Appeal dismissed.