Walji & Others v. United Africa Corporation (T) Ltd. & Others Civ. App. 5-D-70; 16/6/70; Georges C.J.
This is an appeal from a determination by the Rent Tribunal of the Standard Rent of four shops at the corner Makungany and Upanga Streets in Dar –es-Salaam. The premises had not been let on the prescribed date. In this application advocate for the landlord stated before the Tribunal that the suit premises had not been let on the prescribed date and he asked that he rent be fixed under section 4(1)(ii) of the Rent Restriction Act 1962 as amended by the Rent Restriction (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1966. The Chairman then said that ruling would be delivered after visit to the suit premises. Advocate for the applicants did not indicate that he wished to be heard after the visit nor did he indicate any intention to lead evidence. No one is noted as appearing for the tenants. The Tribunal delivered a short ruling fixing the standard rent at Shs. 279/50 per month after ‘ascertaining the rent of similar premises in the same building and adjoining buildings on the prescribed date.” [The Counsel’s] argument was that the Standard Rent has been fixed arbitrarily and that the applicant had had no opportunity to challenge what the Tribunal used as its knowledge.
Held: (i) “With his general argument I have much sympathy but on the facts of these cases it has no relevance. The applicants made no effort to lead any evidence before the Tribunal to help in the assessment. They did not indicate that they wished to be present at the visit or to have a further hearing after the visit. They merely applied to have the standard rent fixed and were content to leave the matter thus. Where the Tribunal is thus left to its own devices in reaching an assessment the parties cannot complain afterwards that it has arrived at the assessment arbitrarily on information which it procured for itself. The Tribunal wishes to arrive at a decision based on facts other that those presented by the applicant there is a duty then on the Tribunal to indicate its likely basic for decision so that the party can have an opportunity of leading evidence in that regard should he wish.” (2) “Here the tenant did not appear. The landlord presented the application and did no more. There was no indication that they wished to do any thing else but await the decision of the Tribunal after its visit.” (3) Appeal dismissed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.