FACULTY OF LAW
NAME: MILDRED KAMENE
ADM: 1051313
CLS 121(TORT LAW)
LECTURER: LAUREEN MUISYO
QUESTION 1;The fear is that, instead of learning to cope with the inevitable irritations
and misfortunes of life, people will look to others to compensate them for all their woes,
and those others will then become unduly defensive or protective. In light of this
statement and using relevant case laws discuss the tort of Nuisance.
Nuisance is defined as an act which gives rise to unlawful, unwarranted or unreasonable
annoyance or discomfort to the plaintiff which results to damage to property of the plaintiff or
interferes with the use and enjoyment of his land. The law provides remedies that are ordered
by court and granted by judgment after trial to settle between the person claiming harm and
the person they believe have caused it.presence of remedies ensures people are compensated.
The law also provides defenses that protect people interests. A defense is put forward by a party
to defeat a suit or action brought against the party and is based on legal grounds or factual
claims.
The tort of nuisance offers defenses such as prescription and statutory authority.
Prescription is effectively acclaimed where the defendant acquired the right to act that way. If
the nuisance has been continued for 20 years without interruption the defendant will escape
liability by pleading a prescriptive right to commit the nuisance. In the case of Sturges v
Bridgman (1879)11 Ch. D 852,the defendant had operated a confectionary manufacturing
business for more than 20 years when the claimant, a doctor built a new set of consulting
grooming in his garden immediately adjacent to the building which housed sweet making
machinery. The claimant then complained of nuisance from the noisy machinery and brought a
successful legal action against the defendant. The court decided on the facts that there was no
nuisance until the consulting rooms were built, and that the 20 years began to run from that
date, so the defense of prescription was not available.
In Miller v Jackson [1977]3WLR 20, The case of Miller v Jackson is a leading English law case
on the issue of prescription in nuisance. The case involved a cricket club and a nearby resident.
The cricket club regularly hit cricket balls over the fence and onto the resident's property,
causing damage and annoyance.The resident sought an injunction to stop the cricket club from
continuing to hit balls onto his property. The cricket club argued that they had a prescriptive right
to continue using their land for cricket, and that this right should take precedence over the
resident's right to be free from nuisance.The House of Lords held that the cricket club did have
a prescriptive right to continue playing cricket on their land, even if this meant that balls were
regularly hit onto the resident's property. The court held that the right had been exercised openly
and without objection for over 20 years, and that this constituted a prescriptive right. 1
1
Sturges v Bridgman’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Sturges-v-Bridgman.php>
accessed 24 March 2023
‘Miller v Jackson’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Miller-v-Jackson.php> accessed 24
March 2023
Statutory authority will be a defense in private nuisance if it can be shown that the activities
complained of by the claimant were authorized expressly or impliedly by a statute. As Lord
Dunedin explained in Corn of Manchester v Farnsworth [1930] AC 171: The case of
Manchester v Farnsworth is a case on the issue of statutory authority in nuisance. The case
involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who owned a coal mine, and the defendant, who owned
a sewage treatment plant. The plaintiff claimed that the sewage treatment plant was causing a
nuisance by emitting noxious fumes and polluting the surrounding area.
The defendant argued that they had statutory authority to operate the sewage treatment plant,
which took precedence over the plaintiff's right to be free from nuisance. The court held that the
defendant did indeed have statutory authority to operate the sewage treatment plant, and that
this constituted a valid defense to the claim of nuisance.
The case of Hunter v Canary Wharf is a landmark case in English law on the issue of whether
an injunction is an appropriate remedy for private nuisance. The case involved a group of
tenants who claimed that the construction of a new building in Canary Wharf interfered with their
television reception.The Court of Appeal held that an injunction was not an appropriate remedy
for the plaintiffs because the interference with television reception did not constitute a serious
enough interference with their use and enjoyment of their property to justify an injunction. The
Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction because the interference was not
sufficiently serious to amount to an actionable nuisance.This case just shows how much instead
of dealin with the problem with television reception they wanted to blame it on others. 2
The are also a number of remedies for nuisance.They include damages and injuction. In
damages, compesation will be paid if it can be proved that damage to land ,personal injuries or
2
‘Nuisance Defences - Nuisance Defences It Is No Defence: That the Plaintiffs Came to the
Nuisance - Studocu’ <https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-south-australia/
torts-b/nuisance-defences/19070245> accessed 24 March 2023
‘Hunter v Canary Wharf’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Hunter-v-Canary-Wharf.php>
accessed 24 March 2023
substantial inconvenience have been caused. The case of Fowler v Jones is a case on the
issue of damages in nuisance. The case involved a dispute between two neighbors over a tree.
The defendant had a large tree on their property, which the plaintiff claimed was causing
damage to their property.
The court held that the tree did indeed constitute a nuisance and awarded damages to the
plaintiff. The damages awarded were based on the cost of repairing the damage caused by the
tree, rather than the diminution in value of the plaintiff's property.
An injunction is an order from the court directing the defendant to desist from the future
commission of any tortious act. it is the remedy most often sought in nuisance cases and is
granted on what is often(but innacurately) described as being discretionary basis .Thus, even
where the claimant can establish an actionable claim, he may nonetheless be refused an
injuction.In Gafford v Graham [1999]EGLR 75, case on the issue of injunctive relief in
nuisance. The case involved a dispute between two neighbors over noise from the defendant's
property. The plaintiff claimed that the noise constituted a nuisance and sought an injunction to
stop the noise.
The court held that an injunction was not an appropriate remedy in this case because the harm
caused by the noise was not irreparable. The court noted that the plaintiff could have easily
mitigated the harm caused by the noise by installing sound insulation in their home.The case is
significant because it established the principle that injunctive relief is only appropriate in cases
where the harm caused by the nuisance is irreparable and cannot be adequately compensated
through monetary damages.3
QUESTION TWO:MR S is a well-known supporter of the kikwetu Alliance. He decides to
join his party members for the long awaited maandamano in kikwetu stadium.During the
meeting a person is heard shouting firefireA stampede ensures and mr.s is seriously
3
‘FOWLER v. JONES (1997) | FindLaw’
<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1013300.html> accessed 24 March 2023
‘Gafford v Graham’ <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/gafford-v-graham.php> accessed 24
March 2023
injured by his colleague sitted next to him.Further, the law enforcers arrest him and his
colleagues for two days.Mr.S is aggrieved and has approached you as an expert in law of
tort.Advise Mr S
In this question its paramount to identify the torts committed against MR.S and how he may be
able to persue a claim of compensation.
In my opinion mr s can sue for negligence by the kikwetu alliance. Firstly, the stampede that
was caused by someone shouting fire created a dangerous situation that led to mr s sufferring
injuries. The party or organizers of the maandamano failed to take reasonable control and
manage the meeting. Therefore the party breached the duty of care owed to MR.S.In holding
such a meeting it was foreseeable that the organizers could foresee incidents like the stampede
happenning and therefore ought to have taken reasonable care to protect those who went for
the maandamano.Mr.s got injured due to the failure of the party leaders to act reasonably
during the meeting.
During the display, one of the Red Arrows planes collided with another plane, causing both
planes to crash. Eleven people were killed and many others were injured.
The families of the victims brought a claim against the Secretary of State for Transport, who was
responsible for the regulation of air displays in the UK. They argued that the Secretary of State
had breached his duty of care to the festival-goers by allowing the display to take place without
adequate safety measures in place.
The court found in favor of the claimants, ruling that the Secretary of State had indeed breached
his duty of care. The judge stated that the organizers of the festival and the Red Arrows team
also owed a duty of care to the festival-goers, and that they had been negligent in their failure to
take adequate safety measures. The same applies to the case at hand.therefore kikwetu
alliance leaders breached their duty of care.
In the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital which established the "but for" test in
negligence cases. The test requires the claimant to prove that the harm suffered would not have
occurred "but for" the defendant's breach of duty. In this case, the court held that even if the
triage nurse had acted differently, Barnett would have still died from arsenic poisoning.In the
Case at hand,if the organizers of the maandamano and the leaders of the party had provided
adequate security and controlled the crowd in a safe manner then MR.S would not have
incurred the injuries.MR.S can therefore claim to be compensated for the injuries he incurred.
S was also imprisoned for two days by the law enforcers.This issue that arises is to determine
whether it was false imprisonment.False imprisonment consist of depriving the claimant of
freedom of movement without law justification. One notable case where demonstrators were
falsely imprisoned is the case of Crown Heights Youth Collective v. City of New York. This case
involved a group of protesters who were arrested and detained during a demonstration against
police brutality in Brooklyn, New York.
The protesters were detained for several hours without being charged with any crimes, and
were later released without explanation. The Crown Heights Youth Collective, a community
organization that had organized the protest, filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the
police department for false imprisonment and violation of the protesters' civil rights.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that the police had violated the protesters'
rights to free speech and assembly by falsely imprisoning them. The court also found that the
police had no probable cause to make the arrests, and that the detention was not justified by
any legitimate law enforcement interest.
As a result of the ruling, the protesters were awarded damages for their false imprisonment, and
the police department was required to implement new policies and training programs to ensure
that similar incidents did not occur in the future. The case served as an important reminder of
the importance of protecting individuals' civil rights, even in the context of protests and
demonstrations.
As a result of the ruling, the protesters were awarded damages for their false imprisonment, and
the police department was required to implement new policies and training programs to ensure
that similar incidents did not occur in the future. The case served as an important reminder of
the importance of protecting individuals' civil rights, even in the context of protests and
demonstrations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Journals
Street on torts
Modern law tort
References
‘Sturges v Bridgman’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Sturges-v-Bridgman.php>
accessed 24 March 2023
‘Miller v Jackson’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Miller-v-Jackson.php> accessed 24
March 2023
Farnsworth [1930] AC 171: The case of Manchester v Farnsworth is a case on the issue
‘Nuisance Defences - Nuisance Defences It Is No Defence: That the Plaintiffs Came to the
Nuisance - Studocu’ <https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-south-australia/
torts-b/nuisance-defences/19070245> accessed 24 March 2023
‘Hunter v Canary Wharf’ <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Hunter-v-Canary-Wharf.php>
accessed 24 March 2023
‘FOWLER v. JONES (1997) | FindLaw’
<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1013300.html> accessed 24 March 2023
‘Gafford v Graham’ <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/gafford-v-graham.php> accessed 24
March 2023
