General Principle of Liability (V)
- That the lines were placed sufficiently high abovethe ground and ran in a straight line from a point far ahead of the plaintiff’s house to a point far beyond it, that a diversion would be unreasonably expensive and might lay the defendants open to complaints by other persons and houses in the area and along a considerable length of the transmission lines, that the defendants had statutory authority for constructing the lines which ran across the plaintiff’s land and that upon a consideration of the evidence, the defendants had not acted unreasonably or negligently in relation to the plaintiff.
- That as regards the defendant’s counterclaim, there was no authority for ordering the plaintiff to demolish the rear portion of his house or from restraining him from using his property as he wished, although he himself must know the obvious risks he was taking in occupying or letting the house.
Adeyinka Morgan J.: “The real aim of the plaintiff is to compel the defendants to acquire the whole of his property and he appears to find the prospect a very rewarding one. The fuel to his ambition appears to me to be a letter written without prejudice by the defendants indicating a decision to acquire the property In my judgement, the letter does not commit the defendants to acquiring the property and they have clearly indicated that they would not acquire it… In my judgement, it is section 50(4) (of the ordinance), which meets the circumstances of this case. It provides as follows:
‘If the power of any land or building access or on which an electric or main transmission line or fixture has been constructed or attached requires the position of such electric or main transmission line to be altered, the Minister, if fully satisfied that the requirements of such power are such as to warrant the alteration of the position of the electric or main transmission line of fixture, may by notice in writing require the corporation to alter the position of such line’….