Wakilii

Devji and Others v Noronha (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 54 · 1951 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Judgment of the Supreme Court set aside; judgment for defendants entered with costs

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 since the enactment of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, came into force, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Kenya has been ousted by the Central or Coast Rent Restriction Boards when proceedings arise out of a dispute between a landlord and tenant. In the case of suits instituted before the coming into force of the 1949 Ordinance, no power is conferred on the Supreme Court to grant an order for recovery of possession. The appeal was allowed.

Outcome

Judgment of the Supreme Court set aside; judgment for defendants entered with costs

Facts

The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for recovery of possession and for payment of arrears of rent in respect of premises to which the provisions of the Kenya legislation dealing with Rent Restriction applied. The plaintiff-respondent obtained the order prayed for on the ground that no contractual tenancy still existed and that as the first appellant had gone out of possession he had no protection under the Rent Restriction Ordinance as a statutory tenant. The suit was instituted under the Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance, 1940, but was determined after the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, came into force on 6 September 1949. The 1949 Ordinance created Central and Coast Rent Restriction Boards with specific jurisdiction over rent disputes in their areas.

Issues

  1. Whether the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, has taken away from the Supreme Court of Kenya jurisdiction to entertain a suit to which the Ordinance applied.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court's jurisdiction possessed under the 1940 Ordinance still attached to suits instituted but not determined before the 1949 Ordinance came into force.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment for defendant entered with costs in substitution for the judgment entered by the Court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction of Courts — Ouster of Supreme Court Jurisdiction by Statute
The local legislature may, by Ordinance, oust or limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court either by express provision or by necessary implication, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court derives its full jurisdiction from an Order in Council.
Administrative Law — Rent Control Boards — Exclusive Jurisdiction
Where a statute specifically confers jurisdiction or power on a Rent Control Board to deal with proceedings for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in respect of controlled premises, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain such proceedings is ousted by necessary implication in the areas served by such Boards.
Statutory Interpretation — Retrospective Effect — Procedural Statutes
A statute which affects only matters of procedure and not vested rights operates retrospectively, even in respect of proceedings instituted before the statute came into force, unless a contrary intention appears.
Statutory Interpretation — Saving Provisions — Section 13(3) Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
Section 13(3) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance does not preserve the jurisdiction of a court to continue proceedings instituted under a repealed enactment where a contrary intention appears in the repealing statute.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Proceedings Arising Under Rent Restriction Legislation
Where a plaint is framed on the assumption that premises are controlled premises under rent restriction legislation, and the defence pleads statutory tenancy, the proceedings are proceedings arising under the Ordinance and not a common law action for recovery of possession.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.31
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.2
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.7
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.34
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.35
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Ordinance, 1940
  • Kenya Colony Order in Council, 1921 Article 4
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) s.13(3)
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.5
  • Expulsion from Proclaimed Areas Ordinance (Cap. 58) s.12

Cases cited (11)

  • G. K. Dagamwalla v. K. E. Rajwani, S.C.C.C. 147 of 1949
  • K. E. Rajwani v G. K. Dagamwalla (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1949)
  • Santa Singh v Valji Lalji Parmar (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1949)
  • Puramchand & Neth Raj v. Sheikh Gulamahomed and two others, S.C. Civil C. 200 of 1949
  • Fatuma Bachoo v. Majothi Kara Juma Bolia, 13 E.A.C.A. 50
  • Inglis v. De Barnard (1841) III Moore 425 (13 E.R. 172)
  • Gill v. Luck, 40 T.L.R. 38
  • Russell v. Lipovitch, L.R. (1925) 1 K.B. 628
  • Joslowitz v. Burstein, L.R. (1948) 1 K.B. 408
  • Remon v. City of London Real Property Co., Ltd., L.R. (1921) 1 K.B. 49
  • The "Ydun", L.R. (1899) Probate 236

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Devji and Others v Noronha (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1950) [1951] EACA 54 (1 January 1951)
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.