21 Apr 2024

Court of Appeal on Friday ordered the duo of Mr Lentswe Mosanako and Ms Elizabeth April to pay P205 733.84 for damage caused by their cattle to the plaintiffs’ commercial crops.

The duo appealed June 24, 2021 High Court ruling that the plaintiffs; Elias Mokwapa Ramosu, Seabelo Ramosu, Otukile Nthatang, Pitso Nthatang and Katlego Mogametsi Tau had fully established their claims and granted them their respective claims.

The court ruled that the duo must compensate the plaintiffs as follows; Elias P47 846.67, Seabelo P30 738.67, Otukile P13 783.00, Pitso 32 106.67 while Tau is to get P81 258.83.

Delivering the ruling, Judge Isaac Lesetedi said the said amounts would attract interest at the rate of 10 per cent per year from the date of judgement to the date of final payment.

The appeal was based on the grounds that the court a quo (below court) erred in holding that the respondents were credible and reliable witnesses and that there was overwhelming evidence that the cattle belonging to the respondents kept on grazing on the appellants’ crops when in fact none of such evidence was placed before the court.

Judge Lesetedi said the appellants in the case were farmers. He said the case had a fairly long history, with the proceedings having been instituted at the High Court in 2014. He said the respondents were claiming damages for loss of commercial crops destroyed by livestock.

The CoA indicated that as per the recorded proceedings from the High Court, the appellants gave their evidence in chief as well as an agricultural demonstrator from the Ministry of Agriculture who testified on the damages arising from the destruction of the crops by the appellants’ cattle.

Their evidence was that on countless occasions between April and July 2013, the appellants’ cattle strayed into their fields, which were neighbouring each other and grazed off the crops, occasioning damage.

Judge Lesetedi said the first respondent/plaintiff, Elias gave the most detailed account of the various instances in which the respondents cattle strayed into the fields at night and on the interactions he had with each of the respondents trying to get them to control their cattle.

Elias had told the court that on one occasion he took his complaint to the kgosi, but the first respondent (Mosanako) was not cooperative.

Judge Lesetedi said the kgosi then advised Mr Mosanako to approach the land board, as it gave the first respondent permission to drill a borehole for watering cattle in an area allocated for ploughing fields, a factor that the respondent contended that it increased the risk of damage to his crops by livestock.

He said Mr Mosanako was at that time the chairperson of Moshupa Sub-district Council, and the first plaintiff, together with other plaintiffs, took the matter to the land board, questioning the allocation of a borehole to Mr Mosanako for watering cattle in a non-grazing area.It was later revealed after thorough investigations that Mr Mosanako had misled the land board, resulting in the allocation of such a borehole.

Judge Lesetedi said Mr Elias had also managed to identify Mr Mosanako’s cattle by their orange ear tags, as well as by the brand mark on the thigh. “He also knew, the second appellant’s cattle and their brand mark as he passed by her kraal when going to his field.

In respect of April, Judge Lesetedi said the first plaintiff evidence was substantially detailed.  “He gave an account of how he had on one occasion called her to come and view the damage after her cattle had destroyed his crops.

On one of the occasions; “After being shown the damage, the second appellant (April) collected her cattle, some by trailer, others by a cart and the rest were driven by herdsmen on horseback,” said Judge Lesetedi.

Mr Elias also gave an account on how on one occasion, he and the third respondent (Otukile) met with April, and her elder son to discuss the damage caused by her cattle, where she was fined 20 herd of cattle, which she entreated and the number was reduced to 10.

However, the court learnt that April subsequently changed her mind about paying the fine, ceased communication with the plaintiffs, resulting in them seeking redress through the High Court.

Judge Lesetedi said the evidence of the fourth respondent (Pitso) was substantially detailed, complementing that of the first respondent (Elias) in material respects.

Presenting her evidence before the High Court during trial, April did not deny that the brand mark which the plaintiffs alluded to in their pleadings was indeed hers, but denied that her cattle had invaded the plaintiffs’ lands and destroyed their crops as they were never shown to her while they were in the field.

Judge Lesetedi said the Mr Mosanako also denied that his cattle had entered the plaintiffs ploughing fields and damaged crops.

However, the judge said the appellant has admitted that one night he was called by the plaintiffs regarding damage caused by cattle alleged to be his, but when he arrived he did not find any cattle in the field. ENDS