Wakilii

Damji (Civil Appeal No, 34 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 22 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing appeal from Central Rent Control Board
Decision
Premises remained subject to rent control under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949

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 word 'erection' in section 1(2)(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 is not wide enough to cover premises which have been reconstructed or altered. Minor alterations to two rooms that changed their use from residential to business premises did not constitute the erection of business premises. The premises therefore remained subject to rent control. The distinction between erection and conversion or reconstruction is a real one in common sense and in law.

Outcome

Premises remained subject to rent control under the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949

Facts

The appellant landlord owned premises consisting of eight living rooms and eight outhouses, purchased in December 1948. After 1st January 1949, alterations were made to two front rooms at a cost of £75 (Sh. 1,500). The alterations consisted of replacing the front door and window with a larger folding door, installing a canopy over the road outside, adding a door at the back, and installing shelves and cupboards. Municipal approval for the alterations was obtained in 1950. The two rooms were converted from residential use to business premises (shops). The landlord applied for rent assessment to the Central Rent Control Board on 26 May 1949, contending that the altered rooms were no longer subject to rent control because they constituted business premises erected after 1st January 1949.

Issues

  1. Whether alterations to premises that changed their use from dwelling house to business premises constituted the erection of business premises commenced after 1st January 1949 within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949.
  2. Whether the word 'erection' in section 1(2)(b) of the Ordinance is wide enough to cover premises which have been reconstructed or altered rather than newly erected.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of Rent Control Board and Supreme Court upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Rent Control Legislation — Construction of 'Erection' — Distinction from Reconstruction or Conversion
The word 'erection' in rent restriction legislation must be distinguished from reconstruction or conversion of existing premises. Minor structural alterations that change the use of premises do not constitute 'erection' within the ordinary meaning of that word.
Rent Control — Decontrol Provisions — Business Premises Erected After Specified Date
Section 1(2)(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, which exempts from control business premises whereof the erection was commenced after 1st January 1949, does not apply to existing premises that have been altered or converted to business use after that date. The provision applies only to newly erected premises.
Rent Control Legislation — Policy Considerations — Ambiguity
When an ambiguity is alleged in rent restriction legislation, it is permissible to bear in mind the policy which dictated the statute. The omission of words referring to conversion or reconstruction in a decontrol provision leads to the inference that the legislature did not intend to free from control premises already subject to control.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.1(2)(b)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.2(1)
  • Nairobi Municipality (Building) By-laws, 1948 by-law 50

Cases cited (6)

  • Hemns v Wheeler (1948) 2 KB 61
  • Barry v. McTighe, Irish Cases, 34 of Blundell's Rent Restriction Cases
  • Keeler v. Brangan, Irish Cases, 356 of Blundell's Rent Restriction Cases
  • Sweeney v. O'Seaghdha, Irish Cases, 663 of Blundell's Rent Restriction Cases
  • Williams v Perry (1924) 1 KB 936
  • Middlesex County Council v Hall (1929) 2 KB 110

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Damji (Civil Appeal No, 34 of 1951) [1952] EACA 22 (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.