Do you know that you are prohibited from playing loud music from your house if the loudness of the music will disturb the peace and tranquility of your neighbours; though it is your house and the sound system is your own?
Do you also know that you are prohibited from parking your car in front of your gate if your packing there will obstruct the movement of your neighbours?
There are numerous other examples which you can make up by yourself but these examples point to the fact that your right to enjoy your private properties or exercising your rights is hinged on the convenience of others. This is to say that while you flex your rights you should consider the convenience of your neighbours. if your exercising such rights will inconvenience others you will be barred from it.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
This is the principle laid down by the English court in the old English case of Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett Citations: [1936] 2 KB 468.
In the above-quoted case, The claimant breeds silver foxes for their fur. The foxes are by their nature, very timid and shy animals and they can be scared easily. Biologically, when these animals are scared or disturbed, the pregnant ones will likely have a miscarriage. The defendant was a farmer and animal rights activist who owned land adjoining the claimant’s fox farm. He objected to the carrying on of the farm and since he could not get the plaintiff to stop breeding the foxes, he asked his son to always fire his gun close to the claimant’s farm in order specifically to frighten the foxes and cause the pregnant ones to have miscarriages. It was hoped that this would cause economic harm to the fox farm and cause them to end their operation. The foxes as expected had miscarriages and the claimant sued in private nuisance requesting an injunction to prevent this behaviour.
The defendant argued that he was only shooting his gun within his own land which unfortunately adjourned to the plaintiff’s. He also argued that he has the right to enjoy his own land the way he likes and the right does not care if the claimant is inconvenienced by him exercising it or not.
The court ruled contrary to the defendant’s argument that no one has “the absolute right to create noises upon his own land, because any right which the law gives him is qualified by the condition that it must not be exercised to the nuisance of his neighbours”. This is to say that the right of one to enjoy or use his property must be cautiously exercised so as not to inconvenience others, especially his neighbours.
This is supportive of the law principle that no right is absolute even the right for you to possess and enjoy your property is not absolute. It must be exercised cautiously so as not to subject others to inconveniences which may arise from you enjoying the property. This is to say that where you right stop another person’s own begins.