GODWIN S. KIGALLA AND 88 OTHERS v NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION 1989 TLR 91 (HC)

 

GODWIN S. KIGALLA AND 88 OTHERS v NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION 1989 TLR 91 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania- Dodoma

Judge Samatta J

26 May, l989 C

Flynote

Land Law -Rent Restriction - Whether the Regional Housing Tribunal has

jurisdiction to D entertain an application by the National Housing Corporation for

increase of rent - Whether National Housing Corporation exempted from the

provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984 - Section 2(1) Rent Restriction Act,

1984. E

-Headnote

The respondent is a parastatal organization. It owns housing units which it rents to

the applicants, none of whom is employed by it. Before the Regional Housing

Tribunal had raised it to shs.510/= the monthly rent for each unit was shs. 90/=. In

this application Mr. Godwin S. Kigalla moves, on behalf of himself and his coapplicants,

who are 88 in F number for an order of Certiorari to bring up and quash

the decision of the Regional Housing Tribunal of Dodoma dated 16/6/l987 allowing an

application filed before it by the respondent corporation and raising the monthly

standard rent for each of the housing units which the applicants occupy from shs.

90/= to shs 510/=. Citing s. 2(1) of the Rent G Restriction Act l984 and paragraph

4(b) of Staff Circular No. 2 of l973 Mr. Kigalla contended that, since the housing units

in question are the property of a parastatal organization the Regional Housing

Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application brought before it by the

respondent. H

Held: (i) The words in s. 2(1) of the Rent Restriction Act must be given their ordinary

meaning. When construed, the subsection cannot be said to exempt dwellings (or I

commercial) premises which are the property of the respondent corporation and

rented to persons

1989 TLR p92

SAMATTA J

employed by public institutions (including Government) other than respondent A

corporation itself;

(ii) if a house or flat belonging to the respondent corporation is rented by a

person employed by the government a local authority or some other parastatal

organization the exemption created by the subsection does not cover such premises.

B However if such premises are rented by an employee of the respondent then the

exemption would apply;

(iii) the Minister for the time being responsible for housing affairs may of

course, by invoking his powers under sec. 2(1)(b) of the Rent Restriction Act, exempt

the C premises but he has in his wisdom not done so. It follows therefore that the

Regional Housing Tribunal was perfectly entitled in law to entertain the respondent's

application. It had jurisdiction to do so.

Case Information

Application dismissed. D

[zJDz]Judgment

Samatta, J.: In this application Mr. Godwin S. Kigalla moves, on behalf of himself and

his co-applicants, who are 88 in number, for an order of certiorari to bring up and

quash a decision of the Regional Housing Tribunal of Dodoma dated 16th June, 1987,

E allowing an application filed before it by the respondent corporation and raising

the monthly standard rent for each of the housing units which the applicants occupy

from shs. 90/= to shs. 510/=. The application raises an important question as to the

meaning F and effect of s. 2(1) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred

to as "the Act"). Although he is not a lawyer, Mr. Kigalla has argued the application

fairly ably and, if I may hasten to add, with that degree of confidence which lawyers

usually display on such occasions.

The facts which are material to the determination of the application may, I think, be

G stated as shortly as is consistent with intelligibility. The respondent is a parastatal

organisation. It owns the housing units in question which it rents to the applicants,

none of whom is employed by it. Before the Regional Housing Tribunal had raised it

to H shs.510/=, the monthly rent for each unit used to be shs.90/=. Basing himself on

s. 2(1) of the Act and paragraph 4(b) of the Staff Circular No. 2 of 1973, issued by the

Central Establishment Division of the President's Office, Mr. Kigalla contended that,

since the housing units in question are the property of a parastatal organisation, the

Regional I Housing Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application brought

before it by the respondent.

1989 TLR p93

SAMATTA J

According to Mr. Kigalla, s. 2(1)(a) of the Act exempts all residential and commercial

A premises owned by the respondent for renting from the application of the

provisions of the Act. Notwithstanding the forceful way Mr. Kigalla presented his

argument, I am unable to accede to it. Section 2(1) of the Act, partly relied upon by

Mr. Kigalla in his contention, reads as follows: B

(1) This Act shall apply to all dwelling houses and commercial premises,

furnished or unfurnished, situate or in course of erection or hereafter to be erected in

any rent restriction area in Tanzania Mainland, other than - C

(a) premises which are the property of the Government, a parastatal

organisation or of a local authority, where such premises are used by or are for use by

employees of the Government, the parastatal organisation or the local authority, D

and

(b) any premises, or class of premises, in Mainland Tanzania, which

the Minister may with approval of the National Assembly signified by a resolution, by

order published in the Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act. E

None of the applicants has, in this application disclosed the identity of his employer,

but for the present purposes it will be assumed that they are employed by the

Government, a F parastatal organization (other than the respondent corporation) or

a local authority. Paragraph 4 of the Staff Circular No. 2 of 1973 reads as follows:

4. These regulations in the matter of rents, have now been reviewed and

it has been G decided to introduce the following changes, with effect from the 1st

March, 1973, which will apply to "public sector housing". For this purpose public

sector housing means and will now include accommodation allocated to officers by:

(a) Government; H

(b) The National Housing Corporation;

(c) The Registrar of Buildings;

(b) Other Parastatal Organisations. I

1989 TLR p94

SAMATTA J

Before proceeding further, I desire to express the hope that I will be forgiven for

stating A the obvious, namely, that Staff Circular issued by the Central

Establishment Division govern only the relationship between the Government and its

employees. The relationships between parastatal orgnisations and local authorities

and their respective B employees are not governed by these circulars; they are

governed by circulars issued by other relevant bodies. Having said that, I must now

revert to the question whether the Regional Housing Tribunal was right in law to

hold, as it seems to have done, that it has jurisdiction to entertain applications for

increase of rent brought by the respondent C corporation in respect of dwelling

premisses owned by the corporation and rented by public servants employed by the

Government, local authorities or parastatal organisation other than the respondent

corporation. It is my opinion that the words in s. 2(1) of the Act must be given their

ordinary meaning. When so construed, the subsection, in my D considered opinion,

cannot be said to exempt dwelling (or commercial) premises which are the property

of the respondent corporation and rented to persons employed by the public

institutions (including the Government) other than the respondent corporation itself.

As I read the subsection, it seems to me that if a house or flat belonging to the E

respondent corporation is rented by a person employed by the government, a local

authority or some other parastatal organisation, the exemption created by the

subsection does not cover such premises. It is arguable, however, that if such premises

are rented by an employee of the respondent corporation, then the exemption would

apply. The F conclusion that there is no merit in Mr. Kigalla's argument is fortified,

as far as employees of the Government are concerned, by the provisions of paragraph

10 of Staff Circular No. 21 of 1973, which reads:

10. Although officers occupying "public sector housing" will now pay rents

based on salary, G the National Hosing Corporation, the Registrar of Buildings or

other Parastatal Organisations, will continue to be entitled to receive the full standard

rent for their premises. Therefore, while accounting officers will recover rents on the

basis of H paragraph 5 above, the full assessed standard rent should be remitted by

accounting officers to the National Housing Corporation, the Registrar of Buildings or

other Parastatal Organisations.

In cases where these accounts are in excess of the rents actually

recovered from I officers, accounting officers

1989 TLR p95

SAMATTA J

should report the shortfall to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of

Communications and A Works.

As amended by Amendment Slip "A", dated August 1, 1974, paragraph 5, referred to

above, reads as follows: B

5. All officers occupying "public sector housing" will be required to pay

rent according to the following percentages of basic salary, irrespective of whether

the accommodation is furnished or unfurnished: C

Category Rate of Basic Salary Rate of Rent

A From minimum wage up to shs.863/= per month 7.5% of Salary.

B Shs.864/= permonth to shs.1,725/= per month10% of Salary. D

C Shs.1,726/= per month and over 12.5% of Salary.

In cases where officers or overseas terms are receiving, in addition to basic salary,

such E other payment as special allowance, expatriation allowance, pay addition etc,

these payments should not be taken into account for the purposes of house rent.

In my opinion, though they are, in terms of paragraph 4 of Staff Circular No. 2 of

1973, F public sector housing, the dwelling premises which the applicants occupy

and which were the subject matter of the proceedings conducted before the Regional

Housing Tribunal, are not exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act.

The Minister for the time being responsible for housing affairs may, of course, by

invoking his G powers under s. 2(1)(b) of the Act, exempt the premises, but he has in

his wisdom not done so. It follows, therefore, that the Regional Housing Tribunal was

perfectly entitled in law to entertain the respondent's application. It had jurisdiction

to do so. Whether or H not it arrived at a just decision is an entirely different

question which cannot be answered in the instance proceedings.

I Application dismissed .

1989 TLR p96

A