Wakilii

Colaco v New Theatres Limited (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 152 · 1955 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from magistrate's order granting new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954
Decision
Appeal dismissed; magistrate's order granting seven-month tenancy 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 the magistrate properly exercised discretion in granting a seven-month tenancy. Benefit to the public is a relevant factor under section 11(1) when assessing reasonableness. The Ordinance does not presume that new tenancies will normally run for the full two years—the period lies entirely within the magistrate's discretion. An appellate court cannot interfere with the weight attached to evidence, and where some evidence supports the magistrate's findings, the Court will not interfere on a question of fact, as appeals under section 13(1) are limited to questions of law.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; magistrate's order granting seven-month tenancy upheld

Facts

The appellant had rented bar premises within the respondent's Playhouse Cinema in Nairobi. The respondent terminated the lease by notice to quit on 31 May 1954, which expired 31 October 1954. Protection under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 ceased 24 December 1954 when the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 came into force. The appellant applied for a new tenancy under section 10 of the 1954 Ordinance. The magistrate sat with two assessors who advised tenancies of 24 and 12 months respectively. The magistrate, exercising his discretion not to follow the assessors' advice, ordered a new tenancy until 31 July 1955—approximately seven months—on the ground that the respondent would provide better service to the public by running the cinema and bar as a joint concern under unified management. The appellant operated another bar elsewhere. By consent, rent and other terms were determined later.

Issues

  1. Whether benefit to the public is a relevant factor when exercising discretion to grant a new tenancy under section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954.
  2. Whether the Ordinance intends that a new tenancy should normally be for the full two-year period.
  3. Whether an appellate court can interfere with the weight attached by the magistrate to particular factors.
  4. Whether the magistrate erred in law by determining the period of tenancy before fixing rent and other terms.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — New Tenancy — Magistrate's Discretion Under Section 11(1)
Under section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954, the magistrate has full discretion to determine the period of a new tenancy. The Ordinance does not imply that new tenancies should normally be granted for the full two-year statutory period.
Landlord and Tenant — Reasonableness — Public Interest as Relevant Factor
The word 'reasonable' in section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 means reasonable having regard both to the interests of the parties and to the interests of the public. Benefit to the public is a relevant factor the magistrate may consider in determining the period and terms of a new tenancy.
Appellate Review — Question of Law — Weight of Evidence
Under section 13(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954, an appeal lies only on a question of law. The weight attached by the magistrate to any particular factor is a matter within his discretion and is not subject to appellate review.
Appellate Review — Interference on Question of Fact — Adequacy of Evidence
An appellate court may interfere as a matter of law where the lower court arrived at a finding without evidence to support it. Provided there is some evidence, the appellate court will not interfere on the ground that the evidence was inadequate, ought to have been outweighed by other evidence, or ought to have been rejected. These are questions of fact not appealable under section 13(1).
Landlord and Tenant — Assessors' Advice — Magistrate Not Bound
A magistrate sitting with assessors under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1954 is not bound to accept or act upon the opinion of the assessors. The magistrate may override their advice in the exercise of his discretion.
Landlord and Tenant — Procedure — Fixing Period Before Rent
There is nothing in section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 to preclude a court from fixing the period of a new tenancy before determining rent and other terms, particularly where the parties consent to this course.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 s.11(1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 s.13(1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 s.10
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1954 s.11(3)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1954 r.11
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1954 r.14
  • Landlord and Tenant (Shops and Hotels) (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1954 r.9
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949

Cases cited (2)

  • Cumming v Danson [1942] 2 All ER 653 (CA)
  • Cresswell v Hodgson [1951] 2 KB 92 (CA)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Colaco v New Theatres Limited (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1955) [1955] EACA 152 (1 January 1955)
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.