A MAZOWE villager, who was ordered to pay 12 beasts as compensation by Chief Nemakope in Mazowe after his cattle destroyed a fellow villager’s maize crop, heaved a sigh of relief following the reversal of the ruling by the High Court.
According to court documents, Kuhlengisa Machona filed a report at Chief Nemakope’s court against Christopher Chisango after his cattle damaged his maize crop.
Machona was seeking compensation for the damaged crop in the sum of US$4 400.
According to court records, Chisango admitted liability and was ordered by the chief to pay US$4 400 or 12 beasts as compensation to the complainant.
Chisango’s cattle were sold in execution of the ruling, leaving a balance of US$656.
Despite Chisango having settled part of the debt, he was aggrieved by the ruling and proceeded to appeal against the chief’s decision in the magistrate’s court.
His appeal was premised on the fact the chief’s court had misdirected itself.
He argued that the court failed to make a fair assessment of the damages to the plants through an officer from the Department of Agricultural Research and Extension Services (Arex)before making the determination.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
Secondly, his appeal was premised on the fact that the judgment was expressed in United States dollars, which was in contravention then of Statutory Instrument (SI) 142 of 2019, which made the Zimdollar legal tender.
He also cited SI 85 of 2020, which prohibited use of the United States dollar in local transactions.
Machona also approached the court by way of review against the magistrate’s conduct of the appeal.
The review was premised on grounds that there was gross irregularity in the proceedings.
He also argued that Chisango had lost the right to appeal as he had already settled the compensation.
Chisango’s response was that he paid under duress.
He argued that he had, in fact, reported a criminal case under CR 53/03/23 regarding the manner in which his cattle were attached in execution of the chief’s judgment.
The magistrate ruled against Chisango, forcing him to approach the High Court for redress.
Justice Amy Tsanga ruled in Chisango’s favour.
“In my view, this is one such case and there was no procedural error on the part of the magistrate in not regarding the appellant’s conduct as constituting peremption,” the ruling read in part.
“Regarding the failure to take the record into account, s24 of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act [Chapter 7:05] clearly states that the magistrate hears the matter de novo or afresh.
“Therefore, in hearing the matter afresh, there are no assumptions made on the part of the magistrate hearing the matter on appeal.”
Added the judge: “On the magistrate’s alleged failure to make a determination on the grounds raised on appeal, notably the key challenge was on the quantum of damages.
“Machona makes the point that the magistrate should have taken into account the admission of guilt by Chisango in the chief’s court, yet it was applicant’s own witness who was not able to be of assistance to the court on the quantum of damages. She was only a field inspector and said assessments and quantifications were done by Arex.
“The basis of the magistrate’s decision was that the quantification of damages was not done scientifically by an expert. Again, I see no procedural shortcoming in the magistrate’s approach conduct as, indeed, the issue of quantum was fully canvassed.”
Justice Tsanga said what was important to the decision on damages was simply that the applicant’s own witness was unable to quantify the loss.
“With no liability having been found upon hearing the matter de novo and with no damages having been found, the magistrate set aside the decision of the lower court,” she said.
“The relief sought by the respondent in the court below was for the judgment of court a quo to be set aside. What it effectively meant was there was no liability against Chisango.
“The provision is clear that the magistrate can give a decision or order as he thinks fit. On the order having been in United States dollars and the magistrate needing to make a pronouncement of that issue, there was no need on the part of the magistrate to delve into the issue of currency since no damages were proved.
“The review lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.”
