Wakilii

Rodrigues v Correa (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 66 · 1945 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from subordinate court order for ejectment under rent restriction legislation
Decision
Ejectment order set aside; appellant retained possession of the rooms.

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 allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order. The court held that there was no evidence of sub-letting where another person merely shared the rooms with the tenant, and that section 11(1)(h) did not apply. Under section 11(1)(d), the burden rests on the landlord to prove availability of suitable alternative accommodation at the time of hearing, which the respondent failed to discharge. The trial magistrate erred in finding sub-letting and in placing the burden of proof on the tenant regarding alternative accommodation.

Outcome

Ejectment order set aside; appellant retained possession of the rooms.

Facts

The appellant occupied two rooms in premises owned by the respondent landlord, to which rent restriction legislation applied. It was conceded that the appellant held one room as a tenant; the respondent contended the second room was held on licence. For approximately four months prior to proceedings, the appellant allowed another man to share the rooms. The respondent sought to recover possession of both rooms, claiming he required them for his own use under section 11(1)(d) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The trial magistrate found the appellant was tenant of one room and licensee of the other, and that the appellant had sub-let without permission, ordering ejectment under sections 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(h).

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant had sub-let the rooms without the landlord's consent so as to lose protection under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
  2. Whether the landlord proved availability of suitable alternative accommodation at the time of hearing as required under section 11(1)(d).
  3. Whether the burden of proving availability of alternative accommodation rests on the landlord or the tenant.
  4. Whether a room held on licence falls within the protection of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Ejectment order set aside.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in both the Court of Appeal and the court below.
  • Costs of the application for stay of execution awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Sub-letting — Sharing of Premises
To constitute a letting there must be delivery of exclusive possession of the premises let; a person who shares a room rented by another cannot be said to have exclusive possession and therefore the arrangement does not constitute sub-letting.
Rent Restriction — Section 11(1)(h) — Sub-letting of Part Only
Under section 11(1)(h) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, a tenant is only deprived of the protection of the Ordinance if he sub-lets the whole of the demised premises or sub-lets part where the remainder is already sub-let; sub-letting of part only does not deprive the tenant of protection.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Burden of Proof — Alternative Accommodation
To recover possession under section 11(1)(d) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, it is for the plaintiff landlord to prove the availability of suitable alternative accommodation at the time of the hearing, not for the defendant tenant to prove non-availability.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Alternative Accommodation — Time of Assessment
Alternative accommodation must be proved to be available at the date of hearing, not merely at various times prior to the hearing.
Pleadings — Issues Not Raised — Judgment on Unpleaded Grounds
Courts are not justified in founding judgment on issues not raised in the pleadings and in respect of which parties were not given any opportunity of adducing evidence or being heard, unless the pleadings are properly amended.

Legislation cited (2)

  • The Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance s.11(1)(d)
  • The Increase of Rent and of Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Ordinance s.11(1)(h)

Cases cited (3)

  • Campbell v Liii (1926) W.N. 139
  • Roe v Russell (1928) 2 K.B. 117
  • Russoff v Lipovitch (1925) 1 K.B. 628

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rodrigues v Correa (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1945) [1945] EACA 66 (1 January 1945)
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.