Wakilii

Werrot and Company and Another v African Highland Timber Company and Others (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1950] EACA 85 · 1950 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of suit for recovery of excess rent by Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Matter remitted to Supreme Court for hearing on the merits

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

Where a temporary rent restriction ordinance ceased to apply to business premises, the court held that subsisting civil rights and causes of action created under the ordinance survived its expiration. On a true construction of the ordinance, it was never intended to destroy accrued civil rights when business premises ceased to be controlled. The appeal was allowed and proceedings remitted for hearing.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Supreme Court for hearing on the merits

Facts

The appellant sued in the Supreme Court of Kenya to recover rent paid to the respondents in excess of the standard rent fixed by the Rent Control Board in respect of business premises. The standard rent was assessed in May 1954 and suit filed in September 1954 under sections 11 and 21 of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, No. 22 of 1949. By virtue of an amendment introduced by Ordinance No. 8 of 1953, the Ordinance ceased to apply to business premises on 25 December 1954. In September 1955, the defendants raised a preliminary objection that since the Ordinance was temporary and had expired, the right of action died with it and there was no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The learned judge upheld this submission and dismissed the suit with costs.

Issues

  1. Whether accrued rights and causes of action arising from rent control legislation survive after that control ceases to apply to the premises in question.
  2. Whether the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance expired or was repealed pro tanto when it ceased to apply to business premises.
  3. Whether civil proceedings to recover excess rent paid under the Ordinance could be maintained after the Ordinance ceased to apply to business premises.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • No costs awarded for the motion and preliminary objections before the Court of Appeal.
  • Judgment of Harley, Ag. J. set aside insofar as it deals with the preliminary issue and the decree based thereon.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the preliminary objections in the Supreme Court in any event.
  • Suit remitted to the Supreme Court for hearing.
  • Both counsel required to give undertakings that no part of the costs of the motion and preliminary objections proceedings be charged to their clients.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Temporary Statutes — Effect on Accrued Civil Rights
On the expiration of a temporary statute, the extent of restrictions imposed and the duration of provisions are matters of construction, and it is not a necessary consequence that rights acquired under it should expire with the statute.
Landlord and Tenant — Rent Restriction — Survival of Causes of Action After Decontrol
Where a rent restriction ordinance ceases to apply to business premises, causes of action for recovery of excess rent paid while the premises were controlled survive the cessation of control unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication extinguishes such rights.
Statutory Interpretation — Distinction Between Repeal and Expiration
There is a difference between statutes which are repealed and temporary statutes which expire: repealed statutes become as if they had never existed (except as regards completed transactions), whereas with temporary statutes the extent of restrictions and duration of provisions are matters of construction.
Statutory Interpretation — Construction Preserving Civil Rights
In construing a temporary statute to determine whether subsisting rights and causes of action created by it should be expunged on its expiration, the court should not lean towards a construction expunging civil rights but may, if necessary, lean towards one preserving them.
Civil Procedure — Practice and Procedure — Obligation of Counsel to Facilitate Litigation
Rules of procedure and practice are made to facilitate and reduce the cost of litigation; counsel who abuse the rules to wantonly obstruct litigation and increase costs may be required to undertake not to charge those costs to their clients or face an order under the taxation rules.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, No. 22 of 1949 s.1(2)
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, No. 22 of 1949 s.11
  • Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, No. 22 of 1949 s.21
  • Ordinance No. 8 of 1953 s.2
  • Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance s.13(3)
  • Eastern African Court of Appeal Rules, 1954, 3rd Schedule, rule 11

Cases cited (13)

  • R v Valabhdas Vasanji (4 E.A.C.A. 37)
  • B.E.A. Timber Co v I. S. Gill (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1955)
  • R v Wicks [1946] 2 All ER 531
  • Wicks v Director of Public Prosecutions [1947] AC 362
  • Bennett v. Talton, 34 T.L.R. 591
  • Spenser v. Hooton, 37 T.L.R. 280
  • P. K. Swamy, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 451
  • Marsh v. Higgins, (1850) 19 L.J.N.S. 297
  • Venugopala v. Krishnaswamy, 30 A.I.R. (1943) Federal 24
  • Noronha v Damji Devji [1954] AC 49
  • Hough v. Windus, 12 Q.B.D. 224
  • R. v. Ellis, 125 L.T. 397
  • Steavenson v Oliver (1841) 8 M & W 234

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Werrot and Company and Another v African Highland Timber Company and Others (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1955) [1950] EACA 85 (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.