CORAM

BELLO

 UWAIS

KAZEEM

ANIAGOLU

KAWU

PARTIES

A. E. IPADEOLA & ANOR APPELLANTS

ABIODUN OSHOWOLE IBADAN METROPOLITAN PLANNING RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff in the Trial Court owns a piece of land. He made a building plan, got it approved by the 2nd Defendant and he thereafter laid a foundation for the building. The 1st Defendant, who was trading under the name and style of Niger Prime Commercial and Industrial Company, also got an approval from the 2nd defendant to erect a building. This building blocked the view of the plaintiff to the Oyo Road. And so it happened that it was the same Ibadan Metropolitan Planning Authority which gave approval to the plaintiff that also gave approval to the 1st defendant. The only difference was that whilst the Plaintiff got his own approval by the middle of 1979, the 1st defendant got his eight months later. He awarded a sum as damages for the nuisance, granted an injunction to stop a continuation of the nuisance, and that the second defendant should demolish the offending building of the first defendant within days of the judgment. The first defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed. The 1st defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

All the grounds of appeal failed. The appeal was dismissed.

ISSUES

The learned justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law when they held that the appeal before them was about the power of a trial judge to order removal of a nuisance and not the competence of a trial court to perform the functions assigned to the Ministry of Works. The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in assuming that a building erected in contravention of the Federal highways (Building Line) Regulations 1971 without more constitutes a nuisance.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Vanderprant v. Mayfair Hotei Co. (1930) 1 Ch.D. 138

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT