Wakilii

El-Kadsey v Issak (Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 33 · 1953 Appeal Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Coast Rent Control Board Executive Officer refusing landlord's application for eviction order
Decision
Matter remitted to Coast Rent Control Board for rehearing before a differently constituted board

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 Executive Officer misdirected himself by failing to apply the proper test for waste or neglect under section 16(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, which requires determining whether the tenant was guilty of untenant-like conduct causing substantial deterioration. The Executive Officer also erred in finding it reasonable to allow a tenant convicted of receiving and storing stolen ivory on the premises to remain, as Parliament did not intend landlords to be compelled to retain tenants who use premises for criminal purposes. Appeal allowed with direction for rehearing before a differently constituted board.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Coast Rent Control Board for rehearing before a differently constituted board

Facts

A landlord applied to the Coast Rent Control Board for an eviction order against his tenant from a dwelling-house. The landlord alleged rent arrears, acts of waste causing deterioration of the premises, and that the tenant had been convicted of receiving stolen ivory which was stored on the premises. The Executive Officer refused the application, finding that rent arrears were not proven, that deterioration was partly due to the landlord's failure to use permanent materials, and that although the tenant had been convicted of receiving stolen ivory, the crime would not debase the reputation or marketability of the premises. The Executive Officer stated the landlord was trying to obtain possession "by hook or by crook" and there would be no material penalization if the tenant remained. The landlord appealed on grounds of misdirection.

Issues

  1. Whether the Executive Officer misdirected himself in refusing the landlord's application for eviction on grounds of waste or neglect by the tenant.
  2. Whether the Executive Officer misdirected himself in refusing eviction where the tenant had been convicted of receiving stolen property stored on the premises.
  3. Whether it is reasonable to evict a tenant who has used demised premises for the purpose of committing a crime.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Direction that there be a new trial before a different Board.
  • Each side to pay its own costs in this Court and the Executive Officer's Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Waste and Neglect — Test for Untenant-like Conduct
Under section 16(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, the word "neglect" is used in the context of tenant-like conduct, so that an order for possession may be made even if the tenant is guilty of no breach of legal obligation and has been given no warning. The practical test is whether the tenant has been guilty of untenant-like conduct in looking after the premises, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and whether as a result the premises have substantially deteriorated to an extent not merely trifling.
Landlord and Tenant — Illegal User — Criminal Conviction — Eviction
It is not the intention of Parliament that a tenant may use demised premises for the purpose of committing a crime and yet that the landlord should be compelled to keep him as his tenant. Only in very exceptional cases can it be said that it is unreasonable to evict a tenant who has been convicted of receiving and keeping valuable goods on the premises.
Landlord and Tenant — Statutory Protection — Loss of Protection on Criminal Conviction
A tenant in arrear with rent to whom a notice to quit has been given is protected by rent restriction legislation, but a statutory tenant loses that protection on conviction for receiving stolen goods into the rented house.
Rent Control Board — Misdirection — Failure to Apply Correct Legal Test
A Rent Control Board Executive Officer misdirects himself where he fails to apply the proper legal test for waste or neglect, fails to weigh the seriousness of a tenant's criminal conviction, and draws incorrect inferences about the reasonableness of eviction based on the landlord's motives rather than the tenant's conduct.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16(b)
  • Rent Restriction Act 1923 s.4(b)

Cases cited (3)

  • Schneiders & Sons v Abrahams [1925] 1 KB 301
  • Birmingham Y.M.C.A. v. Gee, (1924) (Unreported, cited in the Schneiders' case)
  • Shreeve v Hallam [1950] WN 140

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

El-Kadsey v Issak (Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1952) [1953] EACA 33 (1 January 1953)
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.