Wakilii

Souza v Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 4 · 1953 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by landlord against assessment of standard rent by Coast Rent Control Board
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Board's assessment of standard rent upheld

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 Board did not err in law or act unjudicially in rejecting expert evidence estimating construction costs at Sh. 25-30 per square foot and adopting a lower figure of Sh. 22 per square foot based on the landlord's admission that he purchased the property for Sh. 104,000 and the builder's permit application estimated Sh. 119,960. A court is not bound to accept expert evidence if it finds good reason not to do so.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Board's assessment of standard rent upheld

Facts

The landlord applied to the Coast Rent Control Board to fix the standard rent of his premises. Two building contractors estimated construction costs at Sh. 30 per square foot and a valuer at Sh. 25 per square foot. The Board rejected these estimates as too high and fixed the market cost at Sh. 22 per square foot (Sh. 119,960 total). The Board's reasons were that the landlord admitted purchasing the property for Sh. 104,000 in November 1951, considerably less than the experts' estimates, and that the builder's municipal permit application estimated costs at Sh. 119,960. The landlord appealed, arguing the Board erred in law and acted unjudicially in rejecting expert evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Rent Control Board erred in law in arbitrarily fixing the market cost of construction.
  2. Whether the Board acted unjudicially in rejecting expert evidence on construction costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order for costs by consent.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Rent Control — Standard of Review — Findings of Fact
To bring an appeal within section 7 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, which allows appeal only on a question of law or mixed fact and law, an appellant must show that the Board's finding was not merely against the weight of evidence but that there was no evidence before it that could support that finding.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Weight and Rejection
A court or tribunal is not bound to accept the evidence of experts if it finds good reason for not doing so, and may reject expert estimates where circumstantial evidence suggests they are too high.
Administrative Law — Rent Control — Assessment of Standard Rent — Discretion
Where a rent control board rejects expert evidence and adopts a lower figure for construction costs, it does not act unjudicially if it provides reasons based on admissions by the appellant and does its best with the material before it to arrive at a figure as likely to represent the actual cost as any other.
Statutory Interpretation — Rent Control — Standard Rent Calculation
Under section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, a rent control board ought not to exercise its discretion to assess standard rent at a lower percentage than 10 per cent per annum of the market cost of construction plus land value without giving special reasons for doing so.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.2(1)(a)(ii)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949 s.7

Cases cited (1)

  • Satya Pall Aggarwal and others v J. G. Pankhania and others (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1952)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Souza v Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1952) [1953] EACA 4 (1 January 1953)
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.