Wakilii

Laporte v Regina (Criminal Appeals Nos. 157 and 168 of 1952)

East African Court of Justice · [1952] EACJ 1 · 1952 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions by First Class Magistrate's Court at Nairobi for requiring pecuniary consideration as condition of letting premises
Decision
First appellant acquitted; second appellant's conviction upheld

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 first appellant's silence when told that key money had been paid cannot be taken as admission that she authorized the payment requirement. Section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 applies not only to landlords but also to agents and other persons who require payment of a consideration as a condition of granting a tenancy. Under Kenyan law, when a person complies with an illegal demand and gives a pecuniary consideration which is taken, both giver and taker have committed offences, and the giver's evidence should be regarded as that of an accomplice.

Outcome

First appellant acquitted; second appellant's conviction upheld

Facts

The first appellant was a landlord who instructed the second appellant to arrange terms of a lease of her premises in Nairobi to Dr. Aldo Lecchini and Mr. William Gouder. The second appellant required a pecuniary consideration (key money) in addition to rent as a condition of granting the lease. Both appellants were convicted of offences under section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949. The prosecution sought to make the first appellant responsible by showing she had authorized the second appellant's conduct. After the lease was concluded, the tenants told the first appellant that key money had been paid to the second appellant, and she said nothing. There was no evidence that the key money reached the first appellant's hands. The second appellant argued he could not be convicted as the section only applied to landlords, not agents or strangers to the agreement.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellant's silence upon being told that key money had been paid to the second appellant amounted to an admission that she had authorized him to require such payment.
  2. Whether section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 applies only to landlords or also to agents and other persons who require payment of a consideration as a condition of granting a tenancy.
  3. Whether a person who complies with an illegal demand for key money and gives the consideration is an accomplice to the offence.

Orders

  • First appellant's appeal allowed.
  • First appellant's conviction and sentence set aside.
  • Second appellant's appeal dismissed.
  • Second appellant's conviction and sentence upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissions by Silence — Landlord's Silence Upon Being Told of Agent's Receipt of Key Money
A landlord's silence when told by tenants that key money had been paid to her agent cannot be taken to amount to an admission that she had instructed or authorized the agent to require the payment of key money, even if the silence might amount to an admission that she knew the agent had required such payment.
Statutory Interpretation — Rent Restriction Legislation — Scope of 'Person' in Prohibition Against Requiring Key Money
Section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 includes not only a landlord but also a person other than a landlord, such as an agent, who requires the payment of a consideration as a condition of the grant by the landlord of a tenancy, lease, or other occupation.
Statutory Interpretation — Rent Restriction Legislation — Textual Differences Between English and Colonial Statutes
The use of 'no person' instead of 'a person' in section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, and the inclusion of the words 'take or give' in addition to 'require', demonstrates legislative intention that any person who makes a requirement as a condition of granting a tenancy commits an offence, distinguishing the provision from the narrower English Rent Act 1920.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Accomplice Evidence — Giver of Illegal Consideration as Accomplice
Under Kenyan law, when a person to whom an illegal demand is addressed complies with it and gives a pecuniary consideration which is taken, both the giver and the taker have committed offences, and the giver's evidence as to the giving should be regarded as the evidence of an accomplice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Accomplice Status — Victim of Illegal Demand Not an Accomplice to the Demand Itself
A person who is the victim of an illegal demand cannot be said to be an accomplice in the offence constituted by the making of that illegal demand, though the person may commit a separate offence by complying with the demand.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.18(1)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.18(2)
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 s.8(1)
  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 s.8(2)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 s.2(1)
  • Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 s.2(6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Remmington v Larchin [1921] 3 KB 404
  • Gordon v Homeleigh Estates Ltd (1950) 100 LJ 178
  • Barker v Levison [1951] 1 KB 342

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Laporte v Regina (Criminal Appeals Nos. 157 and 168 of 1952) [1952] EACJ 1 (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.