Get premium membership and access questions with answers, video lessons as well as revision papers.

Namweya and Nabayi are both tenants and neighbours at a residential estate. Namweya runs a posho mill business on the premises adjoining the house of her...

      

Namweya and Nabayi are both tenants and neighbours at a residential estate. Namweya
runs a posho mill business on the premises adjoining the house of her neighbour
Nabayi. The posho mill is diesel propelled and when in use causes a lot of vibrations.

Recently, as a result of the vibrations from the posho mill, a beam fell from the roof of
the adjoining house occupied by Nabayi and injured her. Nabayi claims that the
vibrations of the posho mill have been a nuisance and has as a result sued Namweya for
damages.

Explain the legal principles applicable in this case and advise both Namweya and
Nabayi.

  

Answers


Maurice
This problem is based on the tort of nuisance. The vibrations occasioned by
Namweya's mill amount to public nuisance and the neighbours are supposed to
instigate the arrest of Namweya for prosecution for public nuisance which is a crime.

In the second case since Nabayi has suffered particular injury, as a result of the public
nuisance, she has an action in damages against Namweya.

In Sturges V. Bringman (1879) the plaintiff a doctor built a new consulting room next
to defendant's premises, where he used a pestle and mortar for some 20 years.
Noise and vibration interfered with the plaintiff's practice and he sued the
defendant. It was held that the defendant was liable. It was no defence that the
plaintiff himself came to the place of nuisance.
maurice.mutuku answered the question on April 27, 2018 at 06:41


Next: Giving examples, outline the circumstances when a private individual may sue on his own behalf for public nuisance.
Previous: Explain four categories of unascertained goods.

View More CPA Commercial Law Questions and Answers | Return to Questions Index


Learn High School English on YouTube

Related Questions