[1992] KEHC 177 (KLR)

[1992] KEHC 177 (KLR)

The High Court found that the Rent Restrictions Tribunal did not err in its assessment of the cost of construction, plinth area, or valuation figures, as it relied on figures provided by the appellant and there was no material to justify upward variation. The tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's higher land value and using the cost of construction as at 1960, as permitted by statute. The court held that the issue of locality and comparable rents was not relevant to the application before the tribunal, which was for fixing standard rent, not for review based on comparables. However, the tribunal erred in arbitrarily setting the effective date for the enhanced rent without...

Citation
[1992] KEHC 177 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Hermugild De'Souza; Respondent: Kholi & 2 Others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 October 1992
Case Number
Civil Case 102 of 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; effective date of enhanced rent set as 1st September 1990; appellant to bear 75% of costs.
Legal Topics
Rent Restriction, Standard Rent Assessment, Valuation Reports, Effective Date of Rent, Jurisdiction of Appeal, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rent Restriction Standard Rent Assessment Valuation Reports Effective Date of Rent Jurisdiction of Appeal Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermugild De'Souza

Appellant

Kholi & 2 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Rent Restrictions Tribunal erred in its assessment and fixing of standard rent for the appellant's flats.
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to consider relevant factors such as locality and comparable rents as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal used the correct cost of construction, plinth area, and valuation figures in its determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the Rent Restrictions Tribunal did not err in its assessment of the cost of construction, plinth area, or valuation figures, as it relied on figures provided by the appellant and there was no material to justify upward variation. The tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's higher land value and using the cost of construction as at 1960, as permitted by statute. The court held that the issue of locality and comparable rents was not relevant to the application before the tribunal, which was for fixing standard rent, not for review based on comparables. However, the tribunal erred in arbitrarily setting the effective date for the enhanced rent without...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; effective date of enhanced rent set as 1st September 1990; appellant to bear 75% of costs.

Orders

  • The effective date for the enhanced standard rent is set as 1st September 1990.
  • The appellant shall bear 75% of the costs, to be taxed if not agreed upon.