2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs, disturbed by the activities of the defendants' churches, sought legal redress for the sustained nuisance impacting their peace and property enjoyment. Despite obtaining letters of assurance and permits, the defendants' activities exceeded permissible noise levels and violated zoning laws. The court found the activities constituted a nuisance and awarded damages against the defendants. The 3rd defendant was found negligent in his duties to uphold environmental and zoning regulations. The case reinforced the principles of private nuisance, reasonableness, and the necessity of compliance with environmental and zoning laws.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs lived in a quiet and serene environment at Osu until commercialization and its associated noise made it unbearable for them to continue to live there. Between 2002 and 2004, they relocated to Haatso which was quieter and more peaceful. 1st plaintiff's house shares boundary with two plots of land belonging to one Mr. Mends who built a two storey building on one plot and a single storey building on the other. 2nd plaintiff's house is directly opposite the two storey building. Subsequently, defendants acquired the two properties from Mr. Mends at Haatso. 1st plaintiff averred that sometime in 2004 she became aware of activities of 2nd defendant on the property. The activities which included fellowship meetings and singing of hymns did not create a nuisance and was not a source of worry or concern to her. They continued to enjoy peace and quiet until sometime in 2005 when 1st defendant purchased Mr. Mends' other property for Church activities. That was the beginning of their woes. 1st defendant's activities include loud singing, clapping and drumming accompanied by electronic musical instruments and loud prayers both day and night especially from Fridays to Sundays. Plaintiffs further contend that the congregants littered the grounds and blocked the entrance of their houses with their cars.
1st plaintiff averred that the nuisance prevented her baby triplet grandchildren on sleeping, and that she was compelled to go to 1st defendant's premises one man her night gown to protest against the noise. But 1st defendant's members rather booed at her and called her names. Subsequently, 2nd defendant also joined in the excessive noise making, compelling plaintiffs to report the nuisance to the 3rd defendant, the Municipal Chief Executive, Abokobi. Although 3rd defendant directed an officer to write to 1st defendant, the latter failed to comply with the directive and the Assembly prosecuted two pastors of the 1st defendant. Despite the pendency of the suit, 1st defendant demolished the two storey building on the land and commenced construction of a church auditorium. 1st plaintiff contended that the construction works did not only add to the noise level, but defendant's workers looked over her property, posing a security threat to her and her household.
Despite the criminal proceedings, and in blatant disregard of his statutory duty to ensure peace and tranquility in the first class residential area, 3rd defendant proceeded to grant 1st defendant p