Wakilii

D'souza v John (Civil Case No. 252 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 275 · 1952 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of possession with preliminary objection to jurisdiction
Decision
Matter to proceed to trial in the Supreme Court

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 Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Rent Control Board to determine eviction claims under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949. Section 5(1)(f)(i) empowers the Board to order recovery of possession from 'any other person', which includes alleged trespassers. Section 31(3) as amended in 1951 expressly contemplates concurrent jurisdiction, subject only to costs being awarded on the subordinate court scale. The earlier Court of Appeal decision ousting Supreme Court jurisdiction was based on the pre-amendment wording and no longer applies.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to trial in the Supreme Court

Facts

The plaintiff was a monthly tenant of premises which he entered on 1 March 1950. On 1 April 1950 he entered into partnership with four others under the name 'United Drapers' and permitted the firm to occupy the premises as his licensees. In August 1950 the plaintiff ceased to be a partner. The remaining partners later sold the business to the defendant, who occupied the premises without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff gave notice to quit and commenced eviction proceedings, alleging the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the Rent Control Board had exclusive power to determine the claim under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try an eviction claim where the Rent Control Board has power under section 5(1)(f)(i) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 to order recovery of possession.
  2. Whether the words 'any other person' in section 5(1)(f)(i) include an alleged trespasser.
  3. Whether section 31(3) as amended by Ordinance 34 of 1951 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and the Rent Control Board.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try the case.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and Rent Control Board
Section 31(3) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 as amended by Ordinance 34 of 1951 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and the Rent Control Board to determine matters which the Board is empowered to decide, subject only to costs being awarded on the subordinate court scale.
Statutory Interpretation — Rent Control Legislation — Meaning of 'Any Other Person'
The words 'any other person' in section 5(1)(f)(i) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 are not limited to persons claiming or purporting to be tenants or sub-tenants but extend to alleged trespassers and to cases where the main dispute is whether the defendant is a tenant or not.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Effect of Legislative Amendment on Precedent
A Court of Appeal decision holding that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is ousted in rent control matters ceases to be authoritative where the statutory provision on which it was based has been materially amended to include words expressly contemplating concurrent jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.5(1)(f)(i)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.31(3)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.17
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance No. 34 of 1951 s.31(3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Daniji Devji and Others v Noronha (18 E.A.C.A. 54)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

D'souza v John (Civil Case No. 252 of 1951) [1952] EACA 275 (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.