Expropriation Compensation for Business Relocation and Trade Disruption

The case concerns a dispute over compensation following the expropriation of property, where the lower court, in setting the indemnity, failed to properly account for all elements of damage suffered by the former owner, specifically neglecting to include the costs associated with relocating the business activities and the disruption to the trade itself. The high court quashed the lower court's decision, reasoning that the compensation awarded must fully cover all prejudices resulting directly from the expropriation, including not only the value of the seized property but also consequential losses such as the costs of moving the business and the damage to the goodwill or ongoing trade, which the lower court had omitted in its calculation.