The
plaintiff is a resettled farmer carrying out farming activities on
Subdivision 1 of Eastworlds in Mazoe District. Such farm was offered
to him on 21 February 2002 under the Government Resettlement
Programme.
On
the farm is a 12 hectare lemon plantation under irrigation. There is
a ZESA power line which passes through the lemon plantation. On ...
The
plaintiff is a resettled farmer carrying out farming activities on
Subdivision 1 of Eastworlds in Mazoe District. Such farm was offered
to him on 21 February 2002 under the Government Resettlement
Programme.
On
the farm is a 12 hectare lemon plantation under irrigation. There is
a ZESA power line which passes through the lemon plantation. On 25
September 2011 fire broke out on the plaintiff's farm destroying
the lemon plantation. The plaintiff attributed such fire due to the
negligence of the defendant prompting him to file this claim….,.
Ozwell
Kubvoruno testified that he is employed by the defendant as an
artisan and is based at Mvurwi. He attended at the plaintiff's farm
on the day that fire broke out. They had received a report that their
conductor had broken causing a fire which burnt the plaintiff's
fields. He had no reason to disbelieve the report.
On
arrival, there was indeed a conductor lying across the road next to
the plaintiff's lemon plantation. He also observed that the citrus
trees were burning. He also observed burnt piles of cut cyprus
trees. This witness testified that he did not investigate the cause
of the fire but it was his testimony that a conductor could break due
to various causes amongst them veld fires, being hit by lightining,
and trees falling onto the lines. It was also his testimony that
should a person require to cut trees which may interfere with the
defendant's power lines, it was the duty of such person to liase
with the defendant beforehand. The defendant would, on that day,
switch off the line and drop conductors to ensure safety of the
public and their power lines. According to his knowledge the
plaintiff had never requested for such authority.
He
had heard a month before, from his boss, Mrs Masaira, that the
plaintiff had cut a tree which had fallen on to the defendant's
11kv line causing one of the conductors to break. Mrs Masaira
attended to that fault and fixed the conductor. A tree which was
being cut by the plaintiff's workers fell on the powerline causing
the conductor to break. It was the same conductor which snapped and
broke on 25 September 2011….,.
It
is…, not in dispute that a month earlier a tree had fallen on to
the defendant's power line. The plaintiff opined that such tree was
as a result of being blown by wind whereas the defendant insisted the
plaintiff's employees were cutting trees and one of the trees fell
onto the powerline causing the conductor to snap.
For
purposes of this case, it is not crucial to determine what caused the
tree to fall. The relevance of this evidence is on whether the
defendant negligently repaired the conductor on the day in question
and whether, ultimately, such repairs contributed to what caused the
snapping of the conductor on 25 September 2011….,.
The
general policy, the world over, is that trees are not to be allowed
to grow under power lines as that poses dangers when such trees come
into contact with the fully charged power-lines.
However,
I do not intend to waste time on this subject as there is no evidence
that a tree came into contact with the defendant's powerline
causing the conductor to snap and thus causing a fire. If the facts
were such, I would not have hesitated to find the defendant
negligent.
