Wakilii

Nairobi Municipal Council v Din and Another (Criminal Revision Case No. 61 of 1950)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 111 · 1950 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application by tenants seeking variation of demolition order made against property owners under Public Health Ordinance
Decision
Revision application dismissed; magistrate's demolition order stands

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

Tenants served with a demolition order under the Public Health Ordinance but not parties to the original proceedings may call the court's attention to wrong or illegal orders, but the court declined to interfere where the magistrate's order was not unreasonable. Revision being a creature of statute, courts have no inherent power to award costs in revision applications absent statutory provision.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed; magistrate's demolition order stands

Facts

Firoz Din and Aziz Din, owners of Plot No. 697/35, River Road, were summoned before a magistrate under section 124 of the Public Health Ordinance to show cause why a demolition order should not be made. They appeared and admitted the Medical Officer's complaint. The magistrate granted a demolition order to commence on 1 October and be completed by 31 December 1950, and ordered tenants to vacate by 30 September 1950. Two tenants, who were not parties to the original proceedings but were served with the order as required by section 124(2), applied for revision seeking an extension of time for commencement and completion of demolition. The tenants argued hardship in finding alternative shop premises.

Issues

  1. Whether tenants who were not parties to the original proceedings but were served with a demolition order have standing to bring a revision application.
  2. Whether the court has power to award costs in a criminal revision application in the absence of statutory provision.

Orders

  • No order made in revision.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Revision — Standing — Non-parties
Any person may call the attention of the court to a wrong or illegal order made by a magistrate, or one made in excess of or without jurisdiction, but only parties to the proceedings may be heard in revision under sections 361 to 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Public Health — Demolition Orders — Notice to Tenants
Under section 124 of the Public Health Ordinance, an occupier or tenant is not a party to demolition proceedings and is entitled to no more than reasonable notice to quit after the demolition order has been made; seven weeks' notice to vacate is not unreasonable.
Revision — Costs — Inherent Jurisdiction
Revision is not an inherent power but a creature of statute found within the Criminal Procedure Code; courts have no inherent power to supplement the statutory machinery of revision by awarding costs in the absence of express statutory provision.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Public Health Ordinance s.124
  • Public Health Ordinance s.124(2)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.361
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.362
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.363
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.364
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.365
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.178(5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda Misc. Cause No. 19/49, L.R. Suppt. Uganda Gazette-15-11-49
  • A. T. S. Mudaliar v N. Mudaliar and Others (1922) 45 Mad. 913

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nairobi Municipal Council v Din and Another (Criminal Revision Case No. 61 of 1950) [1950] EACA 111 (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.