Evelin d/o Kitale v. R. Crim. App. 303-A-71; 8/10/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Evelin d/o Kitale v. R. Crim. App. 303-A-71; 8/10/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

The appellant was charged with subjecting tenants to annoyance c/s 32 of the Rent Restriction Act 1962 as amended by Act No. 57/66. the section reads: “Any landlord or his agent or servant who willfully subjects a tenant to any annoyance with the intention of compelling the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay, directly or indirectly, a higher rent for the premises shall be guilty of an offence …………” The appellant was convicted but in his judgment the magistrate found that one of the prosecution witnesses told “a downright lie” and that there was “a high possibility” that other prosecution witness had also

            Held: (1) “After the finding that the prosecution witnesses were laying, the logical conclusion to such a finding was the rejection of the prosecution case.” (2) “The particulars [alleging that the landlord had caused the tenants “annoyance/inconvenience”] do not disclose the offence under section 32. The law concerns itself with annoying and not inconveniencing tenants. The learned trial magistrate did not make any finding on the question whether the act of cutting off electricity and water was annoying in law.” (3) “There is another question which the trial court did not decide: the question whether the appellant annoyed her tenants in order that they may vacate her premises or that they should pay her higher rents. There is no evidence to suggest that her intention was other than that which she herself gave: namely, in order that the complainants should pay her the rents which the Tribunal prescribed for them ………” (4) Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.