NAT LOMO MAINOO vs. AIRTEL GHANA LIMITED [2018]DLCA5073

Date	2018-03-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/49/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5073

KUSI-APPIAH J.A.-(PRESIDING)

KORBIEH J.A.

TANKO AMADU J.A.

MR. SIMON OKYERE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. ANTHONY FORSON FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT WITH HIM SUSUANA NYANPONG (MRS.)

[2018]DLCA5073
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >NAT LOMO MAINOO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AIRTEL GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"><o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/49/2016 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 9TH
MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. SIMON OKYERE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MR.
ANTHONY FORSON FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT WITH HIM SUSUANA NYANPONG (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KUSI-APPIAH J.A.-(PRESIDING), KORBIEH J.A., TANKO
AMADU J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.:&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>By his
writ of summons filed on the 3rd day of February 2011, the
plaintiff/appellant brought this action against the defendant/respondent for
several declarations inter alia, an order compelling the defendant to remove
its mast and base station, an injunction restraining the defendant from further
operating the base station and mast near the plaintiff’s house, damages for
violation of statutes and for nuisance.&nbsp;
I will refer to the parties in the manner they appeared at the court
below.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
case of the plaintiff as gathered from his pleadings and evidence at the trial
was that sometime in 2008, the defendant erected a mast and base station at a
location at Spintex Okpoigonno which is 29.5m in proximity to plaintiff’s
house.&nbsp; According to the plaintiff, the
defendant did not obtain his consent prior to the erection of the said mast as
required by the 2006 Guidelines for Installation of Phone Mast.&nbsp; Neither did the defendant obtain the
necessary permits from the statutory bodies whose authorization is a
pre-requisite for the installation of the mast and base station.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
testified that the defendant company’s construction and operation of the phone
mast and base station without the required statutory clearance, approval and
permit from the Environmental Protection Agency, Town and Country Planning
Department, National Communication Authority, etc. is illegal and violates the
said statutory bodies.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff contended that per the Guidelines of 2006 developed by the players in
the communication industry and other research and academic write-ups, there is
a high probability of health risk or hazard associated with telephone mast.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim by its statement of defence filed on
11th March, 2011 and stated that th</main>