Wakilii

Jivanjee and Co v Hirst (Civil Case No. 355 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 269 · 1952 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Coast Rent Board decision on costs
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

A successful applicant before the Coast Rent Board is not entitled to costs as of right, unlike in a court of law. The Rent Board has discretion under section 5 of the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance to award costs. The appellate court will not interfere with that discretion unless it is shown not to have been judicially exercised. The Board's refusal of costs based on the landlord's failure to give receipts for rents was a proper exercise of discretion.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant landlord was a successful applicant before the Coast Rent Board. The Board declined to award the landlord costs, giving as its reason that the landlord had failed to give receipts for rents. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court against the Board's refusal to award costs.

Issues

  1. Whether a successful applicant before the Rent Board is entitled as of right to costs.
  2. Whether the Rent Board exercised its discretion judicially in refusing to award costs to the successful landlord.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Rent Control Tribunals — Costs — Discretion to Award
A successful applicant before a Rent Board established under the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance is not entitled to costs as of right, unlike a successful party in a court of law.
Administrative Law — Rent Control Tribunals — Judicial Review of Discretion
Where a Rent Board is given statutory discretion to award costs, an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown that the discretion has not been judicially exercised.
Statutory Interpretation — Discretionary Powers — Costs Awards
Section 5 of the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance confers a discretion on the Rent Board to award costs, and the Board may properly refuse costs to a successful party based on that party's conduct, such as failure to provide receipts for rents.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance s.5

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jivanjee and Co v Hirst (Civil Case No. 355 of 1950) [1952] EACA 269 (1 January 1952)
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.