Hammond v Wells (Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1952)
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
Where a Rent Control Board exercises discretion under section 2(2)(i) to fix a special standard rent for premises of temporary nature, it must first ascertain the normal standard rent to judge whether that figure would yield an uneconomic return to the landlord. The Board failed to ascertain the normal standard rent or indicate the basis for determining what constituted an economic return. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court's decision setting aside the Board's determination was upheld.
Outcome
Supreme Court decision setting aside Board's determination upheld; respondent granted liberty to apply for re-hearing by Board
Facts
The respondent tenant occupied a banda situated on land at Mbaraki, Mombasa, held by the landlord under temporary occupation licence subject to one month's notice cancellation. The appellant purchased the house for £1,000 in May 1949 and let it furnished to the respondent in March 1951 at £22 per month. The tenant applied to the Coast Rent Control Board to fix standard rent. The Board exercised discretion under section 2(2)(i) to fix special standard rent based on economic return to the landlord, given the temporary nature of both the construction and the occupation licence. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant's appeal, holding the Board failed to make sufficient inquiry. The house was likely in existence on the prescribed date (3 September 1939) for ascertaining standard rent. Evidence suggested the house might originally have cost £425 to construct, but the appellant paid £1,000 in 1949. The Board fixed a standard rent approximately four times higher than the normal standard rent without first ascertaining what that normal standard rent was.
Issues
- Whether the Coast Rent Control Board properly exercised its discretion under section 2(2)(i) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to fix a special standard rent.
- Whether the Board must first ascertain the normal standard rent before determining whether it would yield an uneconomic return to the landlord.
- What procedural requirements apply when a Board exercises discretionary power to fix special standard rent for premises with temporary characteristics.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Respondent granted liberty to apply to the Supreme Court for an order directing the Coast Rent Control Board to re-hear his application if he so wishes.
- Appellant to refund to respondent the difference between the agreement rent and the standard rent fixed by the Board (Sh. 10 per month) if paid.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Rent Restriction Ordinance s.2(2)(i)
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.8
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.13
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.