On a charge of causing unlawful damage under section 172 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), the ingredients to be proved by the prosecution were intention and unlawful damage. On the evidence, the appellants had intentionally destroyed the complainant’s fence wall and they did so unlawfully within the provisions of section 174(1) of Act2Q because as provided by section 174(2) of Act 29 the mere fact of the [pg 150] appellants’ possession of the land in dispute was irrelevant to the commission of the crime under section 172 of Act 29. Besides, if the facts grounding the charge had been brought before the court it would have been sufficient to have had a.’ order of restraint made since no court would allow any person to conduct himself in the manner urged against the appellants. Furthermore, the said facts would have established liability against the appellants. Con­sequently, at the end of the prosecution’s case, there was a prima facie case which required the trial tribunal to call on the appellants to enter their defence. It was only when after the appellants had been called upon, they had testified and offered an explanation to the charge that the trial tribunal would have been enabled to inquire whether or not their conduct was one done in good faith, ie in assertion of a right, since the determination of good faith could only he made after hearing the appellants and having regard to all the cir­cumstances of the case. In the absence of that, the trial tribunal could not come to it decision whether or not the appellants had acted in an honest belief that they were entitled to demolish the fence wall.