Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Rakha v Ahmed (Civil Suit No. 1074 of 1955) [1956] EACA 3 (1 January 1956)
The court held that rooms originally shown as shops or stores were let and used as dwelling accommodation, and that one room used as a private office did not become business premises.
Sagaaf v Khaku and Another (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1955) [1955] EACA 314 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that reasonableness in rent-restriction possession cases is broad, and a late new point of law should not be allowed absent real substance.
Jetha v Chhagan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1955) [1955] EACA 312 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that a building erected under a building lease became part of the tenancy, and the dispute fell within Tanganyika rent restriction law.
Uganda Ration Stores and Others v Bandali and Others1 (Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1954) [1955] EACA 304 (1 January 1955)
The East African Court of Appeal held that a demolition-and-rebuild plan was a redevelopment scheme under Uganda rent control law and dismissed the tenants’ appeal.
Trustees of the Rahimtulla Waljee Hirjee Charitable Trust v Mayer and Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1954) [1955] EACA 136 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that structural-repair covenants were not binding on statutory tenants where inconsistent with section 28 of the Ordinance.
Vyas v Souza (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1954) [1954] EACA 120 (1 January 1954)
The court held that the Board's order postponing possession was not an order for stay of execution for the purpose of appeal as contemplated by rule 5 (1) of the Rules of Court. No application for stay had been made to or granted by the Board prior to the summons, and the subsequent application to the Board for stay was refused. The summons before the Supreme Court was therefore misconceived, as it sought an extension of a stay that did not exist. Furthermore, the application was not framed as a request to set aside the Board's refusal to grant a stay, as required under rule 5 (2). The court…
Source excerpt
Mistry v Hirji (Civil Case No. 330 of 1950) [1952] EACA 273 (1 January 1952)
The court held that while the Coast Rent Control Board generally has jurisdiction to determine questions of subtenancy and tenancy under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1949, this jurisdiction is ousted once execution proceedings are filed in court. At that stage, the Board cannot entertain the claim, and the matter must be brought before the courts. The suit, though framed as a declaratory action, is in essence a claim for possession arising under the Ordinance, and could have been filed in the subordinate court regardless of the amount in dispute. Consequently, any costs recoverable by the…
Source excerpt
Patel and Another v Amin (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1951) [1952] EACA 301 (1 January 1952)
The court held that the magistrate misdirected himself by treating the landlords’ own overcrowding as decisive and ignoring other relevant factors. Appeal allowed; retrial ordered.
Pathak v Trustees of Tayebi Club (Civil Cas&No. 62 of 1952 (Mombasa)) [1952] EACA 284 (1 January 1952)
The court held that before the Rent Board can make an ejectment order against an occupier, it must be satisfied that the original tenant or her representative has been brought on record and that the original contractual tenancy was properly terminated, either by notice to quit, cesser of the lease, forfeiture followed by entry of the landlord, or re-entry if the tenant is dead and the premises are left vacant. The court found that Mani ben Kanji, the original tenant, or her representative, was not joined in the proceedings before the Rent Board, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction to make…
Source excerpt
Laporte v Regina (Criminal Appeals Nos. 157 and 168 of 1952) [1952] EACJ 1 (1 January 1952)
The court held that the first appellant's silence upon being informed of the payment of key money did not amount to an admission of authorizing the agent to require such payment. There was no evidence that she received any part of the key money or that she instructed the agent to demand it. Therefore, her conviction was set aside. Regarding the second appellant, the court found that section 18(1) of the Increase of Rent (Restriction) Ordinance, 1949, applies not only to landlords but also to agents and any person who requires, takes, or gives key money as a condition of tenancy. The textual d…
Source excerpt
