Jaffer v. Umoja Wa Wanawake Wa Tanzania Misc. Civ. App. 10-D-70; 25/3/71; Biron J.

Jaffer v. Umoja Wa Wanawake Wa Tanzania Misc. Civ. App. 10-D-70; 25/3/71; Biron J.

Application to ascertain standard rent was brought by the respondent/tenant who had rented the premises at Shs. 1, 150/- per month. The respondent alleged that there were defects due to disrepair in the premises. The Tribunal ascertained the standard rent at Shs. 1, 150/- because the premises were let on the prescribed date (1/1/65). The Tribunal went on to reduce the rent to Shs. 800/- per month stating that they consideration had visited the suit premises and taken into [its condition and the fact that the landlord had failed to carry out repairs and maintenance. Against this order an appeal was lodged on the grounds inter alia that: (a) the tribunal erred in reducing the standard rent without sufficient evidence on record that the suit premises needed repair; (b) the tribunal acted against the principles of natural justice in not inviting and/or not informing the appellant when visiting the suit premises and giving appellant an opportunity to challenge any evidence which may have come to the knowledge of the tribunal.

            Held: (1) The tribunal may proceed informally provided the informality does not offend against natural justice.  [Citing FATEHALI ALI PEERA AND OTHERS v. ONORATO DELLA SANTA

[1968] H. C. D. 414 and COLONIAL BOOT COMPANY v. DINSHANWA BYRAMJEE AND SONS (1952) 19 E. A. C. A. 125]. (2) It is against natural justice to decide a case on a point noted by the Board as a result of its own efforts and not specifically communicated to the parties so as to allow them an opportunity, if they wish, for contradicting it. In Sharif Marfudh v. Joseph Austine Marulo, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1967, I said:- ‘Obviously’ a Board can take into account its own knowledge of what rents are in a particular area for a certain type of accommodation. Often it may have fixed the rent itself and would be well aware of the pattern. The Board cannot, however, find out ‘from the neighborhood as to the rent chargeable’, and then act on that. It would be acting on evidence which the parties have not heard and have had no opportunity of challenging.’ [Citing R. v. PADDINGTON AND ST. MARYLEBONE RENT TRIBUNAL, EX PARTE BELL LONDON AND PROVINCIAL PROPERTIES LTD. (1949) 1 All E. R. 720 and BOARD OF EDUCATION v. RICE [1915] AC 120]. (3) Although by section 9 of the Rent Restriction Act 1962, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ – “In its determination of any matter, a Tribunal may take into conservation any evidence which it considers relevant to the subject of the inquiry before it, notwithstanding that such evidence would not be admissible under the law relating to evidence,” however, by subsection (10) of the very same section – “The proceedings of a Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings.” A Tribunal could hardly be said to act judiciously or judicially if it offends against the cardinal principle of audi alterem partem. I would therefore, uphold Mr. Bhimji’s submission that in this case there has been a deniel of natural justice.” (4) “A Rent Tribunal is the creation of statue. It has no inherent power but only those vested in it by statue. The Act, as noted in section 29 lays down a procedure whereby a tenant who wishes to have the standard rent of premises rented by him reduced on account of he stated of repair of such premises, could apply to the local authority for a certificate in that behalf. To may mind, it is a condition precedent before a Tribunal could reduce the standard rent on account of the state for repair of premises, that the tenant should obtain such certificate from the local authority, though naturally once a certificate has been obtained, that would not preclude the Tribunal itself from visiting and viewing the premises, should it be considered necessary to do so I make no excuse for declaring as a general rule that before a tribunal can reduce the standard rent of premises on account of the state of repair, there must be before it, as a condition precedent, a certificate from the local authority, as provided for in section 29 of the act above set out.” (5) Appeal allowed.