Wakilii

Gulmohamed v Sheikh Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 42 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing appeal from Central Rent Control Board
Decision
Appeal dismissed 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 an appeal to the Supreme Court from a Rent Control Board determination is not final and a further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. However, where the Board declined to proceed with a hearing on the ground that the proceedings were a misuse of its functions, there was no determination within the meaning of section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, and therefore no appeal lay to the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs

Facts

The appellant landlord applied to the Central Rent Control Board for an order for recovery of possession of controlled premises from the respondent tenant, alleging non-payment of rent, nuisance, waste, and that the landlord required the premises for his own use. The Board commenced hearing but declined to proceed when it became apparent that determining whether rent was due would require a protracted review of accounts between parties who had family and business relationships. The Board held that such proceedings were a misuse of its functions and dismissed the application without costs. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court under section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Board's decision was not a determination within the meaning of section 7. The landlord then appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Central Rent Control Board is final or whether a further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
  2. Whether the decision of the Rent Control Board declining to proceed with the hearing constituted a determination within the meaning of section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 such that an appeal lay to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Rent Control Boards — Jurisdiction — Right of Appeal from Board to Supreme Court — Whether Final
An appeal to the Supreme Court from a determination of a Rent Control Board under section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 is not final, and a further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
Administrative Law — Rent Control Boards — Determination — Meaning of Determination under Section 7
Where a Rent Control Board declines to proceed with a hearing and dismisses an application on the ground that the proceedings are a misuse of the Board's functions, there is no determination within the meaning of section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, and no appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Ordinary Incidents of Procedure — Right of Further Appeal
When a matter arrives at an established court by way of appeal, the ordinary legislation dealing with further appeals from that court applies unless excluded by special legislation or unless the case involves arbitration proceedings of a limited character where the nature of the question and the provisions of the particular statute indicate that no further appeal was intended.
Administrative Law — Rent Control Boards — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Refusal to Exercise Jurisdiction
Where a Rent Control Board has exclusive jurisdiction specifically conferred by statute to determine a claim or proceeding arising under the Ordinance, and the Board declines to exercise that jurisdiction, proceedings by way of prerogative writ to compel the Board to hear and determine the application may be available.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.7
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.5
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.16
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.31
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.34(3)
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance 1940 s.3(6)
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance 1940 s.3(7)
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance 1940 s.4
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance 1940 s.5
  • Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance 1940 s.11
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.65
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.72

Cases cited (9)

  • Hem Singh v Malant Bas Das (1936) 1 All ER 356
  • Secretary of State for India in Council v. Chelekani Rama Rao and others (1916) L.R. 61 Ind. App. 158
  • Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin (1934) L.R. 61 Ind. App. 158
  • Rangoon Botatoung Co. v. Rangoon Collector (1912) L.R. 39, Ind. App. 197
  • Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., (1931) L.R. 58 Ind. App. 259
  • Ahmed Kassam v. Shah Zaverchand Virpal and another, 13 E.A.C.A. 35
  • Hari Singh v. General Workshop 18 E.A.C.A. 4 (EA.C.A. Civil App. 36/50)
  • Damji Davji & 2 others v. G. H. C. Noronha (Civil App. 64/50) 18 E.A.C.A. p 54
  • National Telephone Co Ltd v Postmaster General [1931] AC 546

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gulmohamed v Sheikh Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1950) [1951] EACA 42 (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.