Wakilii

Kaur and Another v Vanmali (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1952 (1))

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 5 · 1950 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya decision remitting matter to Central Rent Control Board for hearing
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter relisted for hearing on the merits

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 once a matter arrives at an established court by way of appeal, ordinary legislation dealing with further appeals from that court applies unless specifically excluded. The Supreme Court's decision was not merely an order of remand under Order XLI, rule 19, but a substantive determination that the Board's decision was wrong in law, with the remittal order being ancillary and consequential. The preliminary objection to the competency of the appeal was therefore disallowed.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter relisted for hearing on the merits

Facts

The respondent, as head-tenant of premises, applied to the Central Rent Control Board for possession against his sub-tenants (the appellants) on grounds of rent arrears and nuisance. The sub-tenants objected that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter concerned a vacant parcel of land. Evidence revealed that the respondent had rented an open plot and erected unauthorized structures in violation of Nairobi Municipal By-laws. The Board dismissed the application, stating it had no jurisdiction over open space claims and would not assist a landlord seeking rent for unauthorized premises. The Supreme Court held the Board had jurisdiction and remitted the matter for determination. The sub-tenants appealed, and the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Supreme Court's remittal order was not appealable as of right.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of the Supreme Court remitting a matter to the Central Rent Control Board for hearing is appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court's decision constituted a final determination of rights or merely an order of remand under Order XLI, rule 19.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection disallowed.
  • Appeal relisted for argument on the merits.
  • Appellants awarded costs of and incidental to the argument on the preliminary objection.
  • If respondent succeeds on appeal and obtains costs order, those costs to be set off against costs now awarded to appellants.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Right of Appeal from Supreme Court Sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction
Once a matter has arrived at an established court by way of appeal, the ordinary legislation dealing with further appeals from that court must be held to apply, unless excluded by special legislation or unless the case falls within specific exceptions.
Appeals — Order of Remand — Appealability
Where a tribunal hears evidence and decides not to grant relief on substantive grounds, and the appellate court holds that determination was wrong in law and remits the matter for further consideration, the remittal order is merely ancillary and consequential to the substantive determination and cannot be treated as a non-appealable order of remand under Order XLI, rule 19.
Rent Control Boards — Appeals from Board Decisions
An appeal lies from a decision of the Supreme Court made on appeal from a Rent Control Board determination, notwithstanding that the Rent Control legislation does not expressly provide for further appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Kenya Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5(1)(f)
  • Kenya Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16(1)(a)
  • Kenya Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.16(1)(b)
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.2
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.72
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.75(1)
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 5) s.75(2)
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Rules Order XLI rule 19
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Rules Order XLII rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Sheikh Noordin Gulnohamed v Sheikh Brothers Ltd (18 EACA 42)
  • Chelekani Rama Rao (1916) LR 43 IA 192

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaur and Another v Vanmali (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1952 (1)) [1950] EACA 5 (1 January 1950)
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.