Nuisance

• Pages: 681-683

Joinder of parties in nuisance Paras. 1501,1502

NUISANCE

(1) JOINDER OF PARTIES IN NUISANCE

1501. Nuisance and joinder of parties.

“Similarly in the instant case different persons claiming damages resulting from dif-

ferent injuries arising from the same nuisance cannot be joined in the same action.

There is no evidence of the injuries sustained by each of the members, or when it

was sustained.” - Per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. in Adediran v. Inter Land Transport

Ltd. (1991) 22 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I) 707 at 722; Suit No. S.C. 119/1987; (1991) 9 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 214) 155 at 183.

(2) LAW OF NUISANCE

1502. The law of nuisance.

(1) “The defendant/respondent in instant case on appeal has right of occupancy to

three plots of land and he got authority, so it is claimed, to run a transport company on

premises. This activity includes keeping a workshop and a fleet of various motor

vehicles, light and heavy. His right was to keep in his vehicles within his premises

including their noxious fumes and greases and oils, which could pollute. If any vehicle

should go out of the premises in furtherance of the company’s business obligations,

and in the process enters into the common public way, the company’s right is limited

to that of passing and repassing, not that of blocking the road by single or double

parking as to obstruct the passage of other users of the road. Similarly, any effluents

drained onto the roads and drainages polluting the neighborhood will certainly consti-

tute nuisance.” - Per Belgore, J.S.C. in Adediran v. Inter Land Transport Ltd.

(1991) 22 N.S.C.C. (Pt. I) 707 at 729; Suit No. S.C. 119/1987; (1991) 9 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 214) 155 at 191.

(2) “The issue is that nuisance has been committed from the premises occupied by

the defendant. We have already in this judgment discussed the principles of the law

of nuisance. There is yet another basic principle which concerns the conduct and

liability of the defendant. It is couched in the Latin Maxim “sic utere tuo ut alienum

non laedas”, which translated means, “so, use your own property as not to injure

your neighbours.”

This is the basic doctrine of the law of nuisance. The lawfulness or legality of

the occupation of the property will neither exonerate nor ameliorate nuisance com-

mitted by the use of the property. See Blackstone; Commentaries on the Laws of

England, Vol. 1. p. 306. I agree entirely with the submission of learned counsel to

the plaintiff that “Exhibit K” was not approved as a licence to commit nuisance.

Accordingly the approval of “Exhibit K” for commercial purposes though inconsis-

tent with the purposes of Exhibit A, which is residential, is valid. However, “Exhibit

681