Wakilii

Chogley v East African Bakery (Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 11 · 1953 Appeal Partly Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Rent Control Board decision dismissing landlord's application for possession
Decision
Matter remitted to Rent Control Board for rehearing on waste allegations

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 Board correctly found insufficient evidence of residential use but erred in characterising this as illegal use rather than breach of tenancy obligations. The Board properly exercised discretion in declining to order possession for irregular rent payment. However, the Board failed to act judicially by founding its decision on alleged waste exclusively on its own observations rather than legal evidence. The case was remitted for rehearing on the waste issue. The Board correctly declined jurisdiction to order payment of repair costs, as no such power was expressly conferred by the Ordinance.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Rent Control Board for rehearing on waste allegations

Facts

The landlord let business premises to the East African Bakery and purported to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit on 1 November 1949. The landlord applied to the Rent Control Board for possession on three grounds: irregular payment of rent, wanton acts of waste, and use of premises for residential purposes in breach of covenant. The landlord also sought Sh. 2,869 for damages in respect of alleged waste, mesne profits and costs. The Board found slight delays in rent payment, held there was insufficient evidence of residential use, and concluded that damage observed did not warrant ejectment. The Board dismissed the application. In reaching its decision on waste, the Board heard evidence from an architect called by the landlord, then visited the premises, formed its own view that damage was very slight and the architect's valuation was very high, and based its decision on those observations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Rent Control Board correctly found insufficient evidence that premises were used for residential purposes in breach of tenancy obligations.
  2. Whether irregular payment of rent constituted a breach of tenancy obligations warranting possession, and whether the Board properly exercised its discretion under section 16(2) in declining to order possession.
  3. Whether the Board acted judicially in visiting premises, forming its own opinion on alleged acts of waste, and preferring that opinion over evidence adduced by the landlord.
  4. Whether the Rent Control Board has jurisdiction under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 to make an order for payment of estimated cost of repairs.

Orders

  • Order of the Rent Control Board set aside.
  • Case remitted to the Board for rehearing on the ground of alleged wanton acts of waste.
  • Respondents (tenants) to pay appellant (landlord) costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Rent Control — Section 16(1)(a) and (b) — Distinction Between Breach of Tenancy Obligations and Illegal Use
Use of business premises for residential purposes in breach of covenant constitutes a breach of one of the obligations of tenancy within section 16(1)(a) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, not an 'illegal use' within section 16(1)(b).
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Control — Section 16(2) — Discretion to Refuse Possession Despite Breach
Even where a tenant is found to be in breach of one of the obligations of tenancy, no order for possession may be made unless the Rent Control Board, exercising its discretion judicially, considers it reasonable to make such an order under section 16(2) of the Ordinance.
Tribunals — Duty to Act Judicially — Reliance on Own Observations in Preference to Legal Evidence
Where a tribunal visits premises under statutory power and forms its own opinion which is not communicated to the parties and not open to cross-examination, and then founds its decision exclusively on those observations in preference to legal evidence adduced, the tribunal has not acted judicially and its decision will be set aside.
Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts and Tribunals — Express Conferment — Strict Construction
In testing whether a statute has conferred jurisdiction on an inferior court or tribunal such as a Rent Control Board, the wording must be strictly construed and jurisdiction must be an express conferment, not a matter of implication.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Control — Jurisdiction to Award Cost of Repairs
The Rent Control Board has no jurisdiction to make an order for the estimated cost of repairs necessitated by acts of waste where no such power is expressly conferred by the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, notwithstanding that the Board may take into account principles of landlord and tenant law in exercising its expressly conferred functions.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16(1)(a)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16(1)(b)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16(2)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.33B
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5(1)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5(1)(n)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5(2)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.18
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Sheikh Noordin Gulmohamed v Sheikh Bros Ltd (18 EACA 42)
  • Meghji Karman v Karamshi Devraj (20 EACA 47)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chogley v East African Bakery (Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 1950) [1953] EACA 11 (1 January 1953)
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.