[1953] EACA 27

[1953] EACA 27

The court held that the liability under by-law 351(b) attaches to the owner who is in a position to allow a new building to be occupied for the first time, not to subsequent owners who acquire the property after occupation has already occurred without a permit. The by-law does not impose liability on subsequent owners for failing to inquire whether a permit was obtained by the original owner. There is no provision in the by-law making negligence or lack of inquiry a basis for criminal liability in these circumstances. Therefore, the convictions of the appellants were quashed and the sentences set aside.

Citation
[1953] EACA 27
Parties
Appellant: Rajaballi Rahemtulla Daya and Others; Respondent: The City Council of Nairobi
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1953
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1953 ; Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1953 ; Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1953
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court
Outcome
appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside
Judges
Hearne CJ, Mayers J, Rudd J
Legal Topics
Municipal by Laws, Building Regulations, Liability of Owner, Permit of Occupation, Statutory Construction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Municipal by Laws Building Regulations Liability of Owner Permit of Occupation Statutory Construction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajaballi Rahemtulla Daya and Others

Appellant

The City Council of Nairobi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants, as subsequent owners of a new building, are liable under by-law 351(b) for allowing occupation without a permit when the original owner allowed occupation before sale.
  2. 2 Whether negligence or failure to inquire about the existence of a permit renders the appellants liable under the by-law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the liability under by-law 351(b) attaches to the owner who is in a position to allow a new building to be occupied for the first time, not to subsequent owners who acquire the property after occupation has already occurred without a permit. The by-law does not impose liability on subsequent owners for failing to inquire whether a permit was obtained by the original owner. There is no provision in the by-law making negligence or lack of inquiry a basis for criminal liability in these circumstances. Therefore, the convictions of the appellants were quashed and the sentences set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside

Orders

  • Convictions of all appellants quashed.
  • Sentences against all appellants set aside.