In court this week
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PENALISED FOR POLLUTING WATER SOURCE
The Supreme Court presided over by Justice Bernardin Renaud has ordered a Construction Company to pay damages to a family who claimed that the company has polluted their water source by building a septic tank in a river from which the Plaintiffs drew and used water for domestic consumption. The Plaintiffs filed a plaint before the Supreme Court in which they alleged that for an unknown number of days up to 24th August 2002, raw sewage, human waste, excrement and other substances polluted the Brillant River from the septic tank and toilet facilities and thereafter flowed to and into the Plaintiffs water pipes and hence entered their house, pipes and taps. The Plaintiffs thus accused the company of committing a “faute” in law and each claimed damages in the sum of R.50, 000 for distress, mental anguish, shock, inconvenience, anxiety and humiliation.
On their part the Defendant countered that not all the Plaintiffs were resident of Brillant at the material time and that the number of Plaintiffs has been deliberately increased with an ulterior motive to attempt to make a higher claim. The Defendant further denied committing any faute when it constructed a superstructure intended to be used as a toilet by its workers, which facilities were demolished before being put into use. The Defendant further denied that the Plaintiffs had laid any pipe to that river and were not using water from the River Brillant for domestic use. The Defendant averred that the river was a mere temporary stream and denied that there has been raw sewage, human waste or excrement entering the river from the constructed toilet. The Court held that on the basis of the evidence it finds on a balance of probabilities that all 8 Plaintiffs resided at the house in question at Brillant at the material times and that the 1st Plaintiff had indeed connected a polythene pipe from the said river to his house where all the Plaintiffs lived.
The Court further finds that in August 2002 the 1st Plaintiff found that on a rock in the Brillant River there was a septic tank and connected to that septic tank, were gutters leading to a shed where the gutters had three or four separations and that Chinese construction workers employed by the Defendant used those gutters as toilets and after using them they threw water therein and that water flowed into the said septic tank to which there was an overflow outlet and discharged in the river. The septic tank and toilet facilities were up-river above the point where the Plaintiffs pipe was connected to the river water source. The Court stated that it believed that the Chinese construction workers have been on that building site for three or four months prior and had built a septic tank specifically to discharge into the river above the source from where the Plaintiffs drew water is located. The Court remarked that it was only after Mr. Odio of MLUH requested the representative of the Defendant to cause the septic tank to be demolished that the Defendant complied and demolished the septic tank sometime in August 2002. The Court also accepted the evidence of the Plaintiffs and found on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiffs had indeed suffered from shock, distress and mental anxiety when they found out what had happened. The Court held that even if there is no scientific proof that the water was contaminated or polluted, the very thought of people defecating in the water source that one drinks is sufficient to cause for mental anxiety and distress. There is no need therefore to prove that the water was indeed polluted. The fact that the Plaintiffs saw, heard and believed that their water source was polluted by human excrement is sufficient to bring about mental distress and anxiety to the Plaintiffs, albeit, with not the same intensity and effect equally. Admittedly there is no evidence that any member of that family developed any negative medical condition, neither was there prior complaint of any bad smell or taste of the water by any of the Plaintiff when they were using it. The Court was of the view that it was not relevant that the Plaintiffs did not have a licence to draw water from the river. Accordingly the Court awarded damages to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs at Rs.10, 000 each; 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Plaintiffs at Rs.6,000 each and the 6th and 8th Plaintiff at Rs.3000 each. Judgment accordingly entered as set out above with interest and costs.