Uganda Case Law

Damji

Damji (Civil Appeal No, 34 of 1951) [1952] EACA 22 (1 January 1952)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No, 34 of 1951

Judge

Hearne CJ, Nihill P, Worley VP

The court held that the wording of section 1(2)(b) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, is not wide enough to include premises that have merely been reconstructed or altered, as opposed to newly erected. The conversion of two rooms from residential to business use, involving structural changes such as new doors, canopy, and shelves, did not amount to the 'erection' of business premises commenced after 1st January, 1949. The legislative intent was to encourage the building of new business premises, not to decontrol existing premises subject to rent restriction through mere co…

Source excerpt

• Rent Control
• Statutory Interpretation
• Conversion Of Premises
• Business Premises
• Dwelling House Definition

Rahim and Bros v Central Rent Control Board

Rahim and Bros v Central Rent Control Board (Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1951) [1951] EACA 326 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1951

Judge

Bourke J

The court held that each separately let part of the house was a dwelling house under the rent ordinance, so rent could be apportioned and the appeal failed.

• Rent Control
• Standard Rent Assessment
• Apportionment Of Rent
• Dwelling House Definition
• Rent-control
• Standard-rent-assessment