Widow Sues Airtel, ATC for N232m Over Noise Pollution, Structural Damage
A Lagos-based widow, Mrs. Sarah Akinya, has dragged telecommunications giant Airtel Networks Limited and ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited before the Lagos State High Court, demanding ₦232 million in damages over alleged noise pollution, environmental nuisance and structural damage linked to a telecommunications mast operating close to her residence in Okota, Lagos.
Akinya is also asking the court to order the dismantling and relocation of the telecommunications facility, alleging that its operations have subjected her household to years of excessive generator noise, vibrations, smoke, fumes and other environmental disturbances.
In the suit before Justice Abisoye Bashua, the claimant is demanding ₦200 million in damages for alleged nuisance arising from the facility’s operations, alongside another ₦32 million in general damages for the discomfort, illness, inconvenience, pain and suffering allegedly experienced by members of her household.
She is further seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing the alleged nuisance or, alternatively, an order compelling them to relocate the telecommunications installation to a more suitable location.
In her amended statement of claim, filed through her lawyer, Ajibola O. Ajiboye of Fadeson Legal Practice, Akinya explained that she had lived in a four-bedroom bungalow on Alhaji Adeniran Street, off Ago Palace Way, Okota, Lagos, since December 1995.
According to her, the dispute started in April 2004 when Airtel allegedly commenced construction activities on a neighbouring property.
She stated that the adjoining property was subsequently transformed into a telecommunications facility known as LAG 101 Base Station, equipped with a high-capacity mast, heavy-duty generators, an energy reservoir and fuel-storage facilities.
Akinya alleged that the equipment was installed approximately four metres from the boundary wall of her residence, exposing her household to the constant noise and vibrations generated by the facility’s operations.
She maintained that the continuous operation of the generators had disrupted the peace and comfort of her home, while the vibrations allegedly caused cracks in the walls of her building and boundary fence.
The widow also accused the telecommunications companies of exposing her family to harmful fumes, smoke and other emissions from the facility.
According to her, the emissions regularly found their way into her residence, settling on furniture and floors and raising serious concerns about the health and safety of the occupants.
She argued that the persistent disturbances had deprived her household of the peaceful enjoyment of their residential property.
Beyond the alleged environmental nuisance, Akinya accused the defendants of negligence over damage to her property’s boundary fence.
She claimed that a trailer transporting a generator to the telecommunications facility rammed into the fence, damaging part of the structure.
According to her, maintenance workers who witnessed the incident allegedly promised to repair the damaged section but failed to fulfil that commitment.
She further alleged that the weakened fence eventually collapsed during heavy rainfall, leaving her property exposed and creating additional security concerns for her household.
To strengthen her environmental pollution claims, Akinya referred to an inspection reportedly carried out by the Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA).
According to the court documents, the agency’s inspection allegedly established that noise levels around the telecommunications installation exceeded the permissible limits for a residential neighbourhood.
The inspection reportedly recorded noise levels of 71 decibels at the entrance to her property and 61 decibels at a distance of five metres.
Akinya maintained that these readings were above the permissible residential limits of 55 decibels during the day and 45 decibels at night.
Following the inspection, LASEPA, under its General Manager, Dr. Babatunde Ajayi, reportedly directed the operators of the facility to implement corrective measures to address the environmental concerns.
The directives allegedly included installing soundproofing materials, redirecting exhaust pipes and ensuring that the facility complied with applicable environmental standards.
The claimant intends to rely on the agency’s intervention as evidence supporting her allegation that the telecommunications installation violated her right to a safe and peaceful residential environment.
The legal dispute also expanded to include ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited as a second defendant.
On January 15, 2026, Justice Bashua granted an application to join ATC in the proceedings after court documents identified the company as the current manager and operator of the telecommunications mast.
ATC, which has its office at Alliance Place, Alfred Rewane Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, was subsequently brought into the suit alongside Airtel Networks Limited.
Akinya’s lawyers at Fadeson Legal Practice also reportedly sent correspondence dated September 2, 2026, to ATC’s management concerning the dispute, with copies forwarded to the Registrar of the Lagos State High Court, Yaba Division.
Through the legal action, the widow is asking the court to hold both companies liable for the alleged environmental nuisance and award her the combined sum of ₦232 million in damages.
She is also seeking judicial intervention to stop the alleged disturbances and prevent further damage to her property and adverse effects on her household.
The case brings renewed attention to the environmental responsibilities of telecommunications companies and infrastructure operators whose installations are situated close to residential buildings.
It also raises questions about the obligations of such companies to control generator noise, exhaust emissions, vibrations and other disturbances that may affect neighbouring residents.
However, the allegations remain claims before the court. The defendants’ liability and the claimant’s entitlement to the damages and other reliefs sought are yet to be determined by the court.
