Sabo Bukenyera v. Mwizarubi Malayarubuzi, (PC) Civ. App. 78-M-69, 2/6/69, Seaton J.

Sabo Bukenyera v. Mwizarubi Malayarubuzi, (PC) Civ. App. 78-M-69, 2/6/69, Seaton J.  

            The plaintiff /respondent brought proceedings in the Primary Court for Shs. 150/- as compensation for rice eaten up by the defendant/ appellant’s cattle. One of the assessors suggested that the compensation should be Shs. 60/-, and the other, Shs. 80/-. The magistrate awarded Shs. 120/-, and gave no reasons for differing with the assessors. On appeal, the District Court increased the compensation to Shs. 150/, apparently on the ground that the defendant/appellant was “very careless with his animals”. The defendant /appellant appealed to the High Court.

                        Held: “It would seem that the district magistrate increased the amount of compensation to a certain extent because he disapproved of Sabo’s attitude. While this may be a very relevant consideration in some Civil Cases, for example, libel or malicious prosecution in some Civil Cases, for example, libel or malicious prosecution, it should not influence the question of compensation for damage due to trespass. In my view, the assessors’ views were consistent with the evidence in the case. Shs. 80/- compensation appears to me to be quite adequate in this case.” Appeal partly allowed. Amount of compensation payable reduced to Shs. 80/-.