[2019]DLHC6058 • January 21, 2019 • High Court
MRS PATRICIA BANNERMAN AND DR. ELIZABETH MASOPEH vs. INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL GOSPEL CHURCH, CROSS ROAD COMMUNITY CHURCH MINISTRIES AND THE MUNICIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
The plaintiffs, homeowners in Haatso, complained that the 1st and 2nd defendants, both churches operating from adjoining or nearby premises in what had been treated as a first-class residential area, created excessive noise through singing, clapping, drumming, loud prayers, electronic instruments and loudspeakers, especially on weekends and at night. They also alleged parking obstruction, littering, security concerns from overlooking construction works, and failure by the 3rd defendant, the Municipal Chief Executive, to enforce planning and environmental controls. The 1st defendant admitted prior complaints and steps taken to reduce the nuisance, including soundproofing and acquisition of a car park, but denied liability and relied on permits later obtained. The 2nd defendant denied causing nuisance and maintained that its worship activities were controlled. The court found that the plaintiffs had established actionable nuisance, particularly against the churches, and that the 3rd defendant had acted capriciously in rezoning and permitting use without due regard to residents’ rights.
read morePlaintiffs lived in a quiet and serene environment at Osu until commercialization and its associated noise made it unbearable for them to continue to live there. Between 2002 and 2004, they relocated to Haatso which was quieter and more peaceful. 1st plaintiff's house shares boundary with two plots of land belonging to one Mr. Mends who built a two storey building on one plot and a single storey building on the other. 2nd plaintiff's house is directly opposite the two storey building. Subsequently, defendants acquired the two properties from Mr. Mends at Haatso. 1st plaintiff averred that sometime in 2004 she became aware of activities of 2nd defendant on the property. The activities which included fellowship meetings and singing of hymns did not create a nuisance and was not a source of worry or concern to her. They continued to enjoy peace and quiet until sometime in 2005 when 1st defendant purchased Mr. Mends' other property for Church activities. That was the beginning of their woe...