Moti v Fatuma (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1951)
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 of Appeal (by 2-1 majority) held that under section 5(1)(h)(i) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949, the Central Rent Control Board may allocate premises left unoccupied for more than one month without good cause after examining all circumstances, unfettered by any requirement to find default by the person legally competent to give possession. The passive wording 'has been left unoccupied' requires proof only of actual emptiness, not responsibility for it. The Board's power to fix rent is permissive; where standard rent is fixed by law, that rent applies. The Board need not take evidence on oath unless evidence is formally taken. Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Allocation of three-roomed flat to respondent by Central Rent Control Board upheld
Facts
The appellant landlord obtained a Supreme Court order for possession of a two-roomed flat occupied by the respondent. A three-roomed flat in the same house, previously let to Dawood Suleiman, was vacated on 31 July 1950 and remained unoccupied until 15 October 1950. Dawood Suleiman retained the key, wishing to accommodate his mother-in-law. The appellant had promised the flat to one Sattani. The Central Rent Control Board, after hearing the parties on 16 and 28 October 1950, decided to allocate the three-roomed flat to the respondent, who faced eviction from the two-roomed flat with her eight children. The Board found no good cause for the flat remaining unoccupied for over two months. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Kenya, which dismissed the appeal. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.
Issues
- Whether the Central Rent Control Board, when determining if premises have been left unoccupied for more than one month without good cause under section 5(1)(h)(i), must find that the person legally competent to give possession was responsible for the non-occupation, or whether the Board may consider all circumstances and reach its own conclusion on good cause irrespective of who was responsible.
- Whether the Board's proceedings were ultra vires because parties were not put on oath.
- Whether section 5(1)(h)(i) applies only to new premises not let on the prescribed date, given that the Board has power to fix rent.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.5(1)(h)(i)
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.2(1)
- Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance 1949 s.3(6)
Cases cited (2)
- Wankie Colliery Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 3 KB 344
- Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1950
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.