Wakilii

Manilal and Company v Mombasa Land Development Company (Civil Case No. 76 of 1952 (Mombasa))

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 279 · 1952 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Coast Rent Control Board order for possession and payment of arrears
Decision
Possession order set aside; matter to proceed to apportionment

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

Held that before a possession order can be made under the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance, the Board must know exactly what rent is lawfully due under the Ordinance, not merely under contract. Where standard rent has been fixed and apportionment ordered but not effected, the Board cannot determine what rent is lawfully due and should not be asked to make a possession order. The Board must also consider reasonableness under section 16(2) before ordering possession, and this requirement is mandatory and limits the jurisdiction of the Court. Appeal allowed and possession order set aside.

Outcome

Possession order set aside; matter to proceed to apportionment

Facts

In 1948 landlord let shop premises to tenant at monthly rent of Sh. 150. In November 1951 the Coast Rent Control Board fixed standard rent for the whole premises at Sh. 7,295 per month payable from 1 December 1951 and ordered the Executive Officer to prepare an apportionment scheme. Apportionment was not effected for the appellant's shop or any other tenant's shop. The Board ordered the appellant to pay arrears of Sh. 920/70 for June to November 1951 at Sh. 153/45 per month and made an order for possession. The tenant had last paid contract rent up to 2 May 1951. The contractual tenancy had been determined and the tenancy had become statutory.

Issues

  1. Whether a possession order can be made under the Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance before apportionment of standard rent has been effected.
  2. Whether the Board must consider reasonableness under section 16(2) before ordering possession.
  3. Whether rent is lawfully due within the meaning of section 16(1)(a) when standard rent has been fixed but apportionment has not been completed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Board's order for possession set aside.
  • Apportionment to be expedited.
  • Each side to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Standard Rent and Apportionment — Possession Order
Where standard rent has been fixed under rent restriction legislation and apportionment ordered but not effected, a Board or Court cannot make a possession order because it cannot determine what rent is lawfully due under the Ordinance as distinct from what was due under contract.
Rent Restriction Legislation — Lawfully Due Rent — Meaning
Once a contractual tenancy is determined and becomes a statutory tenancy under rent restriction legislation, the words 'lawfully due' in a provision authorising possession for non-payment of rent can have only one meaning: lawfully due under the statute, not under the former contract.
Rent Control Board — Reasonableness — Mandatory Consideration
A requirement that a Board or Court consider reasonableness before making a possession order under rent restriction legislation is mandatory and limits the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The point may be taken on appeal even if not raised below, and the tribunal must consider it even if not pleaded by the tenant.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Apportionment — Tenant's Right
A tenant may claim apportionment of rent even after the contractual tenancy has determined and the landlord has commenced proceedings for possession.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance s.16(1)(a)
  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance s.16(2)
  • Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance s.3

Cases cited (5)

  • Kimm v Cohen (1923) 40 TLR 123
  • Austin v Greengrass [1944] 1 All ER 456
  • Smith v Poulter [1947] KB 339
  • Davies v Warwick (1943) 112 LJKB 245
  • Le Fevre v Hurst (1931) 100 LJKB 733

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Manilal and Company v Mombasa Land Development Company (Civil Case No. 76 of 1952 (Mombasa)) [1952] EACA 279 (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.