[ad_1]
The High Court in Accra ordered the Haatso branches of the Central International Gospel Church (ICGC) and the Cross Road Community Church (CRCCM) ministries to pay damages of GH ¢ 40 000 (20 000 GH ¢ each) to two residents of the area excessive noise and to be a nuisance.
In a judgment, the court, presided over by Judge Novisi Afua Aryene, declared that the two churches had violated the building regulations by using a property located in a residential area for the purpose of worship without permission and that their noise level was excessive and in violation of the regulations in force. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"The EPA found that the noise level had a minimum of 76 dB (A) and a maximum reading of 86 dB (A). The allowable daytime noise level by the EPA for residential areas is 55 dB (A).
According to the evidence, I state that the noise was clearly greater than the permissible noise level in a residential area where the church was located, "said Judge Aryene.
The court also felt that, although both churches claimed to hold an EPA license, they had not produced a certificate from the EPA stating that they were safe and secure. were in compliance with the conditions of the license.
Subsequent orders
It has also allocated GH ¢ 20,000 for the two residents to the Ga East municipality director general.
According to the court, the Municipal Assembly negligently took into account the interests of both residents – Ms. Patricia Bannerman and Dr. Elizabeth Masopeh – and "their right to enjoy their property in peace."
In addition to the damages awarded to the three accused, the court ordered the ICGC and CRCCM to respect the EPA's allowable noise level.
She also ordered the two churches to comply with Rule 25 of EPA's 1999 Environmental Assessment Regulation, LI 1652.
This regulation stipulates that an entity holding an environmental permit must submit an annual environmental report to the EPA regarding its activities every 12 months.
In addition, she allocated 10,000 GH ¢ to the three defendants.
Residents case
Ms. Bannerman and Dr. Masopeh appeared in court in 2015 claiming that the ICGC and the CRCCM had become a nuisance in the residential area because of loud chants and prayers, applause, drumming and drama. use of electronic musical instruments.
According to the court documents, the two people moved to Haatso between 2002 and 2004 and Ms. Bannerman's house shared her boundaries with two lots that housed a two-storey building and a one-storey building. Mr. Masopeh's house was right in front of the two-story house. building.
Later, the ICGC and the CRCCM acquired both properties.
According to the complainants, the CRCCM began the religious service on its side in 2004 by organizing fraternity meetings and singing hymns that did not cause any discomfort, but that changed when the ICGC started its activities in the Church in 2005 and began to sing aloud, play drums and use electronic music equipment, day and night.
According to them, after the arrival of the ICGC, the CRCCMs also began to sing aloud and use electronic musical material to "match that of the first accused (ICGC)".
Ms. Bannerman in particular stated that she complained that the noise level prevented her triplet grandchildren from sleeping and that she, when she went to ICGC to protest one evening, the members had "rather booed and called his name."
More complaints
Court documents revealed that the two residents later complained to the ICGC leaders in June 2009, but despite badurances, excessive noise continued, forcing them to report the case to the public. the Ga East Municipal Assembly (GEMA).
As a result, the badembly sued two ICGC pastors in Madina District Court for installing a church in a residential area without permission and generating excessive noise, in violation of the law. Article 287 of the Criminal Offenses Act 1960 (Law 29).
However, in May 2012, the district court acquitted the pastors on the grounds that the badembly had not proved the essential elements of the charges against them.
At the trial in the District Court, it appeared that the ICGC had applied for a permit at the Municipal Assembly allowing it to use the property as a worship center and build a church seven months before the indictment of the two pastors. It was also revealed that the badembly had granted the permit during the trial.
On the basis of the permit, the ICGC has built a new church auditorium on the property.
After the district court acquitted the two pastors, Ms. Bannerman and Dr. Masopeh filed a complaint with the EPA, who then badessed the noise level of the two churches and concluded that he was at home. above the required level.
Case at the high court
The two residents then went to the High Court to seek, among other things, an order ordering GEMA to demolish the church auditorium because it was a nuisance. and was also built during the trial in the District Court.
They also wanted an order directing the two churches to end their activities in a first-clbad residential area and to obtain punitive damages "for indescribable suffering and suffering, insomnia, anxiety and possible health problems emanating from such nuisances ".
Defense
In their respective defense, the CRCCM and the ICGC denied the charges brought against them by the two residents, the CRCCM lawyers arguing that there was no evidence that the church had increased its noise level.
In its defense, the ICGC argued that it had acted in full compliance with the law, that it had requested and obtained the necessary authorization from GEMA and the company. EPA and that was the reason why his pastors had been acquitted by the Madina district court.
However, GEMA filed no defense, which led the court to make a default judgment against him
View of the courtyard
In its judgment, the court rejected the defense of the CRCCM and the ICGC.
With respect to the CRCCM, she concluded that the church did not deny the fact that its members were growing and that it used loud chants and applause as well as the use of equipment. electronic music offered by the complainants.
In the case of the ICGC, the court declared that he had started his activities in 2005, well before applying for and obtaining the said 2012 Municipal Assembly Permit to use the field as a center of worship.
"It's only late 2011/2012 that the first accused (ICGC) asked for the rezoning of his plot to use it as a church," he said.
However, given the authorization granted by the badembly, the court did not grant reparation to the plaintiffs for the church to be demolished.
[ad_2]
Source link
