HOW INTENTIONAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY MAY BE EXCUSED IN LAW

Sometime ago  somewhere in Southern Nigeria, there were two adjoining residential compounds.The residents of one of these two compounds had always been warning the landlord of the other compound about the imminent danger posed by the bath water that used to flow from a structure used as a bathroom by the occupants of the boys' quarters in his compound as it was weakening the rear fence of the compound marking the border between the two compounds which could cause injury to property or persons in their own compound if it collapsed.

No action was taken to correct this anomaly until one day a section of the fence collapsed and fell into the compound of the grumbling neighbours. Though no person or property was injured as a result of the incident, the neighbours who had been waiting for an opportunity to act, invaded the compound of the man who had been warned earlier and pulled down the make-shift bathroom in his compound to avert a future re- occurrence of the incident which may claim lives or properties.

The man whose compound was invaded reported the matter to the police and the perpetrators of the act were subsequently arrested.The suspects then claimed that they were covered under the law to pull down the offensive structure in  the circumstances.

Is the argument of the suspects in the scenario valid?

THE LEGAL POSITION
Section 440 of the Criminal Code declares unlawful an act that causes injury to the property of another without his consent unless it is authorised or justified or excused by law.There is, however, a proviso in that section that provides that a person is not criminally liable for any injury caused to property by the use of such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending or protecting himself, or any other person, or any property, from injury which he believes,  on reasonable grounds, to be imminent.

In the above scenario, it is clear that the suspects had warned the adjoining compound landlord about the imminent danger the bathwater flowing from that bathroom in his compound posed.When he did not act, they resorted to self help. The above-cited law actually excuses this act of self help by the suspect in the scenario as their act was justified in law considering the fact that the fence which was being weakened by the bath bathwater could not only injure persons and properties of those living in the adjoining compound but could also claim the life of any of them.The demolition of the structure qualified in law as the use of reasonable force to avert any damage or injury to persons or properties that the suspects were in reasonable apprehension of.

From the foregoing, the suspect in the scenario could not be said to be criminally liable for the act they were arrested for.

Thank you for your attention.

See you tomorrow.

DISCLAIMER: THE ENTIRE PUBLIC SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE STORY IS FICTION AND IT IS ONLY FOR EDUCATIVE PURPOSES AND IF IT, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BEARS ANY SIMILARITY TO THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AT ANY PLACE OR POINT IN TIME, IT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED THAT IT IS A MERE COINCIDENCE.