Lesso v. Neiliang Melita. Civ. App. 120-A-68; 1/10/69; Platt J.

Lesso v. Neiliang Melita. Civ. App. 120-A-68; 1/10/69; Platt J.

The appellant, Lesso sued the respondent Neiliang for compensation. The appellant was a tenant on the respondent’s land until evicted by him. He claimed compensation for improvements, namely, bananas and a lemon tree. There was evidence that Neiliang had told Lesso to uproot the bananas when he started to plant them.

Held: (1) “There have been a number of cases before the courts showing that parties disputing the title to land very often do not also claim compensation in the event of their losing the land. Claims for compensation are then taken later

on. Therefore, simply because the earlier cases did not deal with the issue of compensation that did not show that compensation could not be claimed by Lesso after the appeal to the High Court was completed. Accordingly, I would disagree with the Primary Court and the District Court, where it was held that the claim for compensation brought by Lesso was res judicata.” (2) “On the other hand, considering the question of compensation, on the basis that Lesso was a tenant, it is clear in the first place that Lesso was not entitled to plant permanent trees. He was only entitled to use the eland for planting crops. If he wished to plant permanent trees, then he had either to seek the permission of the land owner, or if the land owner gave him tacitly to understand that he did not mind the land being used in that way, then he was entitled to claim for some compensation. Secondly, if there were crops still standing in the shamba, Neiliang had to allow Lesso to harvest them. It appears in this case that as far as bananas are concerned, Neiliang objected to Lesso planting them, and therefore no compensation can be claim for them, because it was as a result of Lesso’s planting those trees that the first case was brought. Nothing is said about the lemon tree, and it appears therefore that as Neiliang lived nearby, he must be understood to have allowed that tree to be planted. Concerning the other crops, there is very little evidence to suggest that they were planted. But even if that were so, it is to be seen from Neiling[‘s evidence that Lesso was allowed to be on the land for a further two years. During that time, it was quite possible for Lesso to have gathered all his crops. Therefore, it is difficult to see that he had a just claim of or compensation as to those things. There is finally the question of the house and that appears to be a matter on which Neiling ought to pay compensation. In Neiling’s evidence he did not dispute that he was liable to pay some compensation……. I am quite satisfied therefore that Lesso’s claim is wildly exaggerated and that if he is to have compensation at all, it should only be for the house and the lemon tree.” (3) Case remitted to Primary court for assessment of compensation.