AYISHETU MBONWURA v. FATAWU KRAMO ADAM AND SHIRAZU DRAMANI

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment relates to nuisance in tort.

2. The plaintiff in this case is a businesswoman trading in foodstuffs and resident at

Buipe whiles the defendants are businessmen operating a toilet facility, the subject

matter in this case, at Buipe. On 15th March, 2022 the plaintiff instituted this action

against the defendants for the following reliefs, which I shall reproduce verbatim:

“a. An order directing the defendants to remove or demolish the toilet facility

from the location since it is not conducive for such business.

b. An order directing the defendants to clean the area of where the toilet

facility was including the gutter behind it.

c. Any other order as this honourable court may deem fit

e. Punitive costs.”

2. The defendants on 11th April, 2022 filed a Defence disputing plaintiff’s claim. On 29

th

April, 2022 the plaintiff also filed a Reply to defendant’s Defence. The respective cases

of the parties are detailed below.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

3. The plaintiff’s case is that the land on which defendants are operating the toilet

facility is directly opposite her house and that there is only a gutter between them.

She averred that her window faces directly to defendants’ toilet facility and that the

stench that emanates from the facility is unbearable. According to her, the toilet waste

flows into the gutter, making her and the family sick of typhoid and recurrent

malaria. She added that one of the dangerous and unpleasant activities of the

defendants is that anytime the toilet is full, defendants would employ ‘motorking

polytankers’ to draw or offload the waste material, making the whole area smelly

and filthy. She added that the toilet facility is located in a waterlog area which is not

conducive for such facility because it generates a stench that is harmful to the

community. She contended further that the defendants were operating the facility

without permit, so the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit (ESHU) of the

Central Gonja District Assembly (CGDA) ordered defendants to stop operating. But

defendants will not cease operating unless compelled by this court. She also

indicated that the community has two other public toilets, but this one in question is

a nuisance to her.

4. In support of his case, plaintiff tendered in evidence the following exhibits:

i. Exhibits A and A1 – Pictures of the toilet facility and her residence

ii. Exhibit B– Notice from the Environmental Health and