Wakilii

Alvares v Mohamed (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 315 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Central Rent Control Board ordering tenant's eviction
Decision
Eviction order of Central Rent Control Board upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that a point not raised before the Rent Control Board and not going to jurisdiction cannot be argued on appeal, but a point going to the Board's jurisdiction may be argued even if not raised below. However, where a notice to quit was produced in recognized form and no objection was taken at the time, the Court will not entertain arguments attacking its validity on appeal. The Board correctly considered alternative accommodation and properly weighed all relevant factors including the tenant's loss of goodwill against the landlord's circumstances. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Eviction order of Central Rent Control Board upheld

Facts

The Central Rent Control Board ordered the appellant tenant's eviction from premises on the ground that they were reasonably required by the respondent landlord under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1951. The landlord's application was made under section 16(1)(e)(ii) dealing with business premises. The proceedings below were conducted throughout on the footing that the premises were business premises only. A notice to quit in the general recognized form was produced by the landlord and no objection was taken to its validity. The Board, by majority decision of two to one, found that alternative accommodation was available and that it was reasonable to order eviction, considering factors including the tenant's loss of goodwill and the landlord's near-blindness.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant could argue on appeal that the premises were both business premises and a dwelling-house when this point was not raised before the Rent Control Board.
  2. Whether the appellant could challenge the validity of the notice to quit on appeal when this point was not raised before the Board.
  3. Whether alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability was available to the tenant.
  4. Whether the Board applied the correct tests and considered all relevant factors in deciding it was reasonable to order eviction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Appeals from Tribunals — New Points on Appeal — Points Not Going to Jurisdiction
A point not raised before an administrative tribunal and not going to its jurisdiction cannot be argued for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Administrative Law — Appeals from Tribunals — Jurisdictional Points — Raising on Appeal
A point going to the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal may be argued on appeal even if it was not raised before the tribunal below.
Landlord and Tenant — Notice to Quit — Validity — Failure to Object Below
Where a notice to quit in the general recognized form is produced and no objection is taken to its validity either at the time or in argument before the tribunal, and proceedings are conducted on the footing that the tenant is a statutory tenant, the Court will not consider arguments attacking the validity of the notice on appeal.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Control — Eviction — Reasonableness — Factors to Consider
In determining whether it is reasonable to order eviction under rent control legislation, the tribunal must consider all relevant factors including the tenant's loss of goodwill and the landlord's personal circumstances, and weigh these factors against each other in assessing the balance of hardship.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1951 s.16(1)(e)(i)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1951 s.16(1)(e)(ii)

Cases cited (1)

  • Colonial Boot Company v Dinshaw Byramlee & Sons (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1952)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Alvares v Mohamed (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1952) [1952] EACA 315 (1 January 1952)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.