The rule in Rylands vs Fletcher (1868) was stated by House of Lords in the following terms. “Where a person for his own purposes bring and keeps on land his occupation anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he must keep it at his peril, and if he fails to do so, he is liable for all damages naturally occurring from the escape”.

In the instant case, there was escape of the solvent from the container being used by Nexis Leather Co. Ltd and that the solvent finally percolated into the water supply run by Bamidele Water Co. Ltd.

However, the issue that would make the Rule applicable in the instant case is whether the Nexis Leather Co. Ltd could not reasonably have foreseen that the spillage or solvent over time would contaminate the water supply.

It is to be noted that to make the Rule fully applicable, there should be an essential requirement of foreseeability, apart from the fact that there must be an escape of a thing that inflicts injury from a place over which the alleged tortfeasor has control. Therefore, Bamidele Water Co. Ltd has a strong case if they can prove the escape was foreseeable and caused damage.