The area under consideration is nuisance. Nuisance is divided into public nuisance and private nuisance, although it is quite possible for the same conduct to amount to both.

A public nuisance is a crime, while private nuisance is a tort. Nuisance actions have concerned pollution by oil or noxious fumes, interference with leisure activities, offensive smells from premises for keeping animals, or noise from industrial installations.

The prevailing stance of nuisance liability is that of protection of private rights in the enjoyment of land, so that control of injurious activities for the benefit of the community is incidental.

In narrowing the scenario to private nuisance, Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts define private nuisance as unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or in connection with some right over or in connection with it. Generally, the essence of nuisance is a state of affairs that is either continuous or recurrent or an activity that unduly interferes with the use or enjoyment of land. Not every slight annoyance, therefore, is actionable. Stenches, smoke, the escape of effluent, and a multitude of different things may amount to nuisance.

In the present scenario, the nuisance complained of is within the residential area of which Atta Mante and others reside. The claim is the recurrence of no more failing than the enjoyment of their rights to the land. The balance of interest is not being personal to Atta Mante but to the wider residential community.

Therefore, Atta Mante and the other residents will succeed in a court action against Adiso District Council.

(8 marks)