Wakilii

Queen v Chairman and Members of the Central Rent Control Board; Ex Parte - Corbett Limited (Civil Proceeding No. 14 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 137 · 1955 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash a 1948 rent assessment and a 2015 decision refusing to review that assessment
Decision
Application for writs of certiorari and mandamus dismissed

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 discharged the application for writs of certiorari and mandamus. The 1948 rent assessment was made within jurisdiction and without breach of natural justice, as the Rent Control Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, was entitled to obtain information in any manner provided it gave parties a fair opportunity to correct or contradict relevant statements. Certiorari was refused due to the five-year delay, the availability of an appeal on a question of law which was not exercised, and the absence of any error on the face of the Board's 2015 decision refusing review. Mandamus was refused because no demand for assessment had been made to the Board.

Outcome

Application for writs of certiorari and mandamus dismissed

Facts

Until January 1953, Mr. and Mrs. Norburn jointly owned a block of flats in Nairobi. In 1948, Mr. Norburn applied to the Rent Control Board to assess the standard rent under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance, 1940. He provided the Board's valuation officer with a blueprint showing superficial areas, stated the market value as £9,000, and attended an inspection. The officer calculated a gross valuation of £8,767 9s 0d. The Board assessed the standard rent at Sh. 1,050 per month without summoning Mr. Norburn to attend. No appeal was filed. In January 1953, the flats were transferred to Corbett Limited, a private company of which Mr. Norburn was a director. In late 1954, tenants complained of rent overcharges. In February 1955, the company applied to the Board to review the 1948 assessment. After hearing the tenants and the company, the Board refused the application. On 26 February 1955, the company applied to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash both the 1948 assessment and the 2015 refusal to review.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1948 rent assessment by the Rent Control Board was made in breach of natural justice by failing to summon the applicant to attend.
  2. Whether the 1948 assessment was based on wrong principles or insufficient evidence.
  3. Whether certiorari lies to quash the 1948 assessment after a delay of over five years.
  4. Whether certiorari lies to quash the Board's 2015 decision refusing to review the 1948 assessment where no error appears on the face of the record.
  5. Whether mandamus lies to compel the Board to assess standard rent where no demand was made and no refusal occurred.

Orders

  • Order nisi discharged.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus — Separate Remedies with Different Functions
An order of certiorari and mandamus is not a single remedy known to law; writs of certiorari and mandamus are separate remedies with different functions.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Double Function — Excess of Jurisdiction and Error of Law on Face of Record
The writ of certiorari has a double function: first, to prevent inferior courts and tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction and, second, to correct errors of law appearing on the face of the tribunal's record. It cannot be used for any other purpose.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Contents of the Record — Exclusion of Evidence and Reasons Unless Incorporated
In an application for certiorari, the record must contain at least the document which initiates the proceedings, the pleadings, and the adjudication, but not the evidence, nor the reasons, unless the tribunal chooses to incorporate them.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence — Distinction Between Excess of Jurisdiction and Error of Law
Where certiorari is granted on the ground of excess of jurisdiction, affidavit evidence is admissible, but not when it is granted on the ground of error of law appearing on the face of the record, for the error must appear on the record itself. Nevertheless, affidavits, if not objected to, may be used by consent to supplement the record.
Natural Justice — Quasi-Judicial Tribunals — Procedural Obligations — No Entitlement to Oral Hearing
A party to a dispute before a quasi-judicial tribunal is not entitled to an oral hearing, but the tribunal must act according to its own procedure and obtain information in any way it thinks best, provided it gives a fair opportunity to those who are parties to the controversy to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to their views.
Judicial Review — Certiorari — Discretionary Remedy — Effect of Delay and Availability of Appeal
Certiorari is a discretionary remedy and it is a wrong exercise of discretion to allow such a remedy after a long delay, particularly where an appeal on a question of law was available but not exercised.
Judicial Review — Mandamus — Precondition of Demand and Refusal
A demand for performance must precede an application for mandamus. Where the tribunal was never asked to perform the act sought and never refused to do so, mandamus cannot lie.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance, 1940 s.2A(7)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.5(1)(p)

Cases cited (6)

  • Tara Singh Kundi v Swedish Products Co (1952) 25 KLR 64
  • Ram Nath Dhir (1952) 25 KLR 67
  • R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shaw [1951] 1 TLR 270; [1952] 1 TLR 161
  • The King v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128 (PC)
  • Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179
  • Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120 (HL)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Queen v Chairman and Members of the Central Rent Control Board; Ex Parte - Corbett Limited (Civil Proceeding No. 14 of 1955) [1955] EACA 137 (1 January 1955)
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.