That the Learned Trial Magistrate failed to take into consideration the defence, if any, of the 2nd Defendant. That the Learned trial Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the first Defendant had an easement on the subject land by prescription. That the learned trial Magistrate failed to take into account that the 1st Defendant had a statutory easement on the subject land by operation of Clause 7.1 of the Sugar Industry Master Award, an award conferred under Section 64 of the Sugar Industry Act 1984. That the learned trial Magistrate failed to take into account the public policy and practicality of the 1st Defendant's position. That the learned trial Magistrate failed to take into account the practicality of the 1st Defendants position in that the judgement encloses the 1st Defendant whereby it became impossible for him to harvest and transport his cane.
Background facts The background facts are set out fully in the judgment.
The plaintiffs further aver that as a result of the said acts the plaintiffs have suffered damages and losses and will continue to do so. They are also applying for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on to or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of their land. The plaintiffs refute this and say that the defendant is a trespasser on the said land of the plaintiffs. The defence of the defendants is consent i.e. that the two plaintiffs had given their consent for the filling up of the drain. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both counsel in this Appeal.