[1952] EACA 269
The Supreme Court held that the Rent Board's discretion to award costs is not equivalent to the automatic entitlement to costs in ordinary courts of law. The Board's refusal to award costs to the landlord was based on the landlord's failure to provide receipts for rents, a factual finding supported by evidence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1952] EACA 269
- Parties
- Appellant: Moosajee Jivanjee & Co.; Respondent: Mrs. G. W. Hirst
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Case No. 355 of 1950
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- De Lestang J
- Legal Topics
- Rent Board Proceedings, Costs Award Discretion, Landlord Tenant Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Moosajee Jivanjee & Co.
Appellant
Mrs. G. W. Hirst
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Is a successful applicant before the Rent Board entitled to costs as a matter of right.
- 2 Did the Rent Board exercise its discretion judicially in refusing to award costs to the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the Rent Board's discretion to award costs is not equivalent to the automatic entitlement to costs in ordinary courts of law. The Board's refusal to award costs to the landlord was based on the landlord's failure to provide receipts for rents, a factual finding supported by evidence. The appellate court found no indication that the Board's discretion was exercised improperly or without judicial consideration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board's decision.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
# ORIGINAL CIVIL
### Before DE LESTANG. J.
### MOOSAJEE\_JIVANJEE & CO., Appellants (Original Landlord)
#### υ
## MRS. G. W. HIRST, Respondent (Original Tenant)
Civil Case No. 355 of 1950
Increase of Rent Restriction Ordinance—Discretion of the Board to award costs.
A successful applicant before Coast Rent Board was not awarded costs the Board giving its reasons therefor. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Held (1-2-51).—A successful applicant before the Rent Board is not entitled as a matter of right as is the case of a successful applicant in a Court of Law to his costs. Appeal dismissed.
S. M. Ahmed for appellants.
Respondent in person.
JUDGMENT.—I cannot see any merit in this appeal. A successful applicant before the Rent Board is not entitled as a matter of right as is the case of a<br>successful applicant in a Court of Law to his costs. The Board is, however, given by section 5 of the Ordinance a discretion to award costs and this Court will not interfere with that discretion unless it is shown that it has not been judicially exercised. In the present case the Board gave as its reasons for refusing the landlord his costs the fact that he had failed to give receipts for rents. There was clearly evidence upon which the Board could have made its finding of facts and even though this Court might not have refused a successful party his costs for the reasons given by the Board it does not follow that it has not acted judicially.
$$