Fuel depot seepage into a neighbouring farm: nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
Volta Oil Storage Ltd runs a fuel depot at Tema. Its tanker discharge valve seal had been flagged in an internal audit six months earlier as 'due for replacement'. The company postponed replacement to save GH¢8,000. During a night discharge, 2,000 litres of diesel escaped through the worn seal, flowed into a drain and contaminated the borehole and fish pond of Green Leaf Farms next door. The farm's lettuce crop was ruined and 1,200 tilapia died. The depot holds all environmental permits and had passed an EPA inspection. Green Leaf sues in private nuisance and under Rylands v Fletcher. Volta argues that it used reasonable care, that the area is an industrial zone, and that the harm was not foreseeable because the drain had never overflowed before. The farm seeks an injunction to stop further discharges and damages.
1. Analyse whether the escape constitutes an unreasonable interference for private nuisance, taking account of the industrial locality and the one-off nature of the escape.
Read the worked answer
Private nuisance
Private nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land. The court weighs the locality, duration, intensity, sensitivity and utility of the defendant's conduct. Tema is an industrial area, so some fumes and heavy vehicle traffic are expected. But the contamination of a borehole and fish pond is physical damage, not a sensitive use; locality does not license pollution. The escape was a one-off, and private nuisance usually requires a continuing state of affairs. Here, however, the worn seal was a continuing risk created by Volta's failure to maintain. The interference was unreasonable: 2,000 litres of diesel, a known defective seal, and a foreseeable risk to the neighbouring farm. Volta's permits and EPA inspection do not authorise pollution. Private nuisance is likely established.
2. Would the rule in Rylands v Fletcher succeed, and how should the court deal with the arguments that the use was natural and the harm unforeseeable?
Read the worked answer
Rylands v Fletcher
The rule imposes strict liability where the defendant brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, in a non-natural use of land, and it escapes and causes damage. Diesel in bulk is capable of causing mischief. The difficult element is non-natural use. An industrial zone and an environmental permit suggest a normal industrial use, but storing large quantities of fuel next to a farm, with a seal flagged for replacement, can be characterised as an exceptional and risky use. The court will look at the quantity, the location and the precautions.
If the rule applies, reasonable care is not a defence; the worn seal strengthens rather than weakens the claim. Cambridge Water requires the damage to be reasonably foreseeable, and contamination of a neighbour's water and fish is plainly foreseeable. The 'never overflowed before' argument fails. Statutory authority would be a defence only if the statute compelled the nuisance; a permit is not enough. Rylands is therefore an alternative route to liability, though the court may prefer nuisance because the harm arose from a continuing state of affairs.
3. Assume liability is established. Discuss the court's approach to damages and to Green Leaf's claim for an injunction.
Read the worked answer
Remedies
Green Leaf can recover damages for the cost of cleaning or replacing the borehole, restocking the pond, loss of the lettuce crop and any proved consequential loss. It must mitigate by taking reasonable steps to contain the contamination and preserve evidence. A claim for diminution in land value may be available if the contamination is permanent. The same loss cannot be recovered twice under nuisance and Rylands.
An injunction is possible. A prohibitory injunction would restrain further discharges; a mandatory order could require repair of the seal. The court balances the harm to the claimant against the hardship to the defendant. Since the seal can be replaced for about GH¢8,000, the court may hold that damages are adequate and refuse an injunction, but the continuing risk of serious pollution may justify at least a quia timet injunction. Volta's cost-saving motive is relevant to the equities.