ADEDIRAN V. INTERLAND

• Pages: 707-735

ADEDIRAN V. INTERLAND



707

ADEDIRAN V. INTERLAND

5

10

15

J.A. ADEDIRAN & ORS.

(as representatives and on

behalf of all members of

Ire-Akari Housing Estate

Association, 'solo).

V.

INTERLAND TRANSPORT LTD.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARIB1-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

20



BELGORE,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

OLATAWURA,



J.S.C.

13th December, 1991.

25

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

APPEAL No. SC.119/1987.

Appeal - Issues not pleaded at trial - Whether proper to raise them on appeal without leave

of appellate court.

Land law - Building plan - Whether valid being inconsistent with approved layout.

30

Practice and Procedure - S. 6(6)(b) 1979 Constitution - Effect on Conzmunal Law

Provision as to bringing actions in respect of nuisance - Distinction between Public and

Private nuisance abolished by 1979 Constitution - Order 13 rule 14 High Court Rules

of Lagos State - Representative action - When it may lie in nuisance - S.239

35





Constitution 1979 - Jurisdiction of trial court to hear an action - Court

to

follow

procedure provided by rules of court.

Torts -

Nuisance - Distinction between Public and Private nuisance - Who may sue for

public nuisance - Legality of occupation of premises not a defence of nuisance.

40

ISSUES:

1.

What is the distinction between Public and Private nuisance?

2.

What is the importance of the distinction between private and public nuisance

as to bringing action in respect of nuisance at common law?

45

3. Whether the restriction imposed at common law on the right of action in public

nuisance is inconsistent with the provisions of section 6(6) (b) of the Constitution

1979.

4.

Whether an individual who suffers injury arising from public nuisance has a right

of action.

50

5. When may an action lie in a representative capacity in a claim of nuisance?

6. What is the object of the rule as to joinder of parties in civil actions?

708



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1991] 2 N.S.C.C.

7. Whether legality of occupation of property can exonerate the commission of

nuisance therefrom.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs are residents of Ire-Akari Housing Estate, (solo. They formed an

association, the Ire-Akari Housing Estate Association. With leave of the court,

plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other members of the

Ire-Akari Housing Estate Association. The defendant which is a limited liability

company and the second defendant also a limited liability company, are owners

of plot 351, 352, 353 in Block VA of the Ire-Akari Housing Estate. The defendants

are in transport business and own several workshops and for parking the Trailers.

The complaints of the residents of the Estate is that the heavy trailers have

rendered the roads unsafe for children, destroyed the road and knocked down

electric poles. The disturbing noise made by the drivers in the process of returning

to park the vehicles and taking off early in the morning constitute in addition to the

other inconvenient activities the nuisance complained of. After several protests to

the 1st defendant, the residents, who are the plaintiffs brought this action in the

High Court of Lagos State claiming in their amended statement of claim, an

injunction to restrain the defendants from using the plots of land for commercial

purposes, special damages and damages for loss caused by the plaintiffs nui-

sance. After due trial of the claim on the pleadings exchanged by the parties in the

High Court, the claim against the 2nd defendant was dismissed. The learned trial

judge held the 1st defendant liable for the tort of nuisance and also awarded

special and general damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on five grounds of errors of law

and facts. The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the trial court holding that

since it was not proved that the whole Estate was to be a residential area, on which

fact the learned trial judge based his conclusion, that the acts complained consti-

tuted a nuisance, the judgment cannot stand. Plaintiffs have now appealed to the

Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

The Common Law of England which applies in this country, recognises that

nuisance may either be a public nuisance or a private nuisance. A public

nuisance is one which inflicts damage injury or inconvenience to the generality

of the population, or upon all of a class who come within its ambit. A private

individual has a right of action for public nuisance if he can establish that he

has sustained particular damage other than and beyond the general

inconvenience and injury suffered by the public and that the particular damage

is direct and substantial.

4

On the other hand, a private nuisance is one which interferes with a person's

use and enjoyment of land of some right, such as an easement, connected

with land.

(See p.717, line 52 & p.718, lines 1 - 11).

2.

The distinction between public and private nuisance is of critical importance

at common law because of the consideration of the proper person to initiate



4

proceedings. The general rule is that a private individual can only take

proceedings in his own name in respect of an injury sustained from a public

nuisance, where he has suffered some particular, direct and substantial

damage over and above those sustained by the public at large or when the

interference with the public right involves a violation of some private right of his

own, or threat of damage to his property. He can also exercise such a right of

action if conferred on him by statute. In any case the nuisance must be a cause

1

2

3

3