Wakilii

East African Hotels Limited v Koenig (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 13 · 1946 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 in action for damages for breach of contract and trespass
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court affirmed awarding damages for breach of contract

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 forcible eviction of a hotel lodger without the permission of the Hotel Control Authority constituted a breach of contract. The notice to quit was given illegally in breach of Regulation 8 of the Defence (Control of Hotels) Regulations, 1943 and was a nullity in law, failing to terminate the monthly contract. Where a plaintiff suffers severe and prolonged discomfort and inconvenience as a direct result of breach of contract, he is entitled to a reasonable amount of general damages to recompense him for such hardship.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court affirmed awarding damages for breach of contract

Facts

The respondent was a lodger at the appellants' hotel on monthly terms at Sh. 330 per month. On 14 April 1944, the appellants gave the respondent notice to vacate the hotel by 30 April 1944. The respondent failed to vacate and on 1 May 1944 the appellants forcibly evicted him from the hotel, taking possession of his room and removing his baggage and effects. The eviction followed a letter from the respondent complaining on behalf of himself and fellow guests about the poor quality and cooking of food served. The respondent brought an action for damages for breach of contract and trespass. At the material time there was an acute shortage of hotel accommodation in Nairobi and the respondent needed to live reasonably near his place of employment.

Issues

  1. Whether the eviction of a hotel lodger without the permission of the Hotel Control Authority constituted a breach of contract.
  2. Whether a plaintiff who suffers severe and prolonged discomfort and inconvenience as a direct result of breach of contract is entitled to substantial general damages.
  3. Whether a notice to quit given in breach of Regulation 8 of the Defence (Control of Hotels) Regulations, 1943 was a nullity in law and failed to terminate the monthly contract.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Statutory Restriction on Contractual Rights — Effect of Emergency Regulations
Where emergency legislation restricts a contractual right, a statutory restriction should be read into the contract such that exercise of the restricted right without statutory permission constitutes a breach of contract.
Administrative Law — Emergency Regulations — Hotel Control — Notice to Quit
A notice to quit given by a hotel proprietor in breach of Regulation 8 of the Defence (Control of Hotels) Regulations, 1943 without the permission of the Hotel Control Authority is a nullity in law and does not have the effect of terminating a monthly contract of residence.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discomfort and Inconvenience — Assessment
Where a plaintiff as a direct result of a breach of contract suffers severe and prolonged discomfort and inconvenience, he is entitled to a reasonable amount of general damages to recompense him for such hardship, and not merely nominal damages.
Damages & Quantum — Remoteness — Special Circumstances — Contemplation of Parties
Where special circumstances giving rise to hardship suffered as a result of breach of contract were well known to both parties at the date of the contract and at the date of the breach, such circumstances are within the contemplation of both parties and the defendant must recompense the plaintiff for such hardship.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Defence (Control of Hotels) Regulations, 1943 Regulation 8

Cases cited (2)

  • Hobbs and Wife v The London and South-Western Railway Co (44 LJ NSQB 49)
  • George v Mitchell & King [1943] 1 AER 233

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

East African Hotels Limited v Koenig (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1946) [1946] EACA 13 (1 January 1946)
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.