The respondent in the case had allegedly cut timber on the land of the appellant without the appellant’s knowledge or consent, and was considered a trespasser. There was evidence of the respondent having paid a sum to two adjoining landowners.

The appellant claimed unpaid royalties for timbers cut and collected and damages for environmental damage, transport costs and general damages. The appellant also meant that the cut timber had caused a loss of water when a water hole became dry as a result of the timber cut down. This also caused animals to avoid the area. No reforestation had been done.

The respondent meant that the timber had been cut on the land of the persons having received payment, and not on the land of the appellant.

According to the Court it was clear that the respondent had trespassed and that there must be an award for the environmental damage.