Govind v. David Misc. Civ. App. 4-A-70; 26/6/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Govind v. David Misc. Civ. App. 4-A-70; 26/6/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Arusha Rent Tribunal fixing standard rent of premises. The grounds of appeal were inter alia that; (a) there was no evidence upon which the standard rent of Shs. 150/- per month could be fixed; (b) the Tribunal’s judgment and orders were arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record; (c) the Tribunal erred in law in not reading and/or delivering its judgment in the presence of the parties or their advocates.

            Held: (1) “The Tribunal did not receive sufficient evidence on which to act. That was why it took it upon itself to visit the suit premises. The respondent made a passing reference to the leaking roof of the suit premises. He furnished no evidence in support of his allegation. Being unable to base any decision on this allegation, the Tribunal embarked on a visit to the suit premises. this action was legally objectionable following the rule in Fatehali Ali Peera v. Onorata De la Sante, which Platt, J. (as he then was) adopted in the case of Sachak vs. Kabuye 1969 H. C. D. 292, holding that: - “It is against natural justice for a Tribunal to decided on a point noted by it, as a result of its own efforts and not specifically communicated to the parties so as to allow them an opportunity for contradiction.” In the present case, the record does not show that he Tribunal visited the premises at the instance of any party, or that opportunity was afforded to the appellant to contradict the Tribunal on its observations at the site. This was clearly another point on which the Tribunal did not act judicially.” (2) “Although I would not go as far as saying that the “Tribunal’s judgment and order are arbitrary and contrary to evidence,” I would not say that the complaint is entirely unjustified in view of the foregoing. It is evident from the number of cases reaching this Court that the Tribunal does not seriously address its mind to the great task before it. Instead and in spite of numerous directions from this court the Tribunal would do well to advise the Tribunal on how to perform its functions properly in the interests of justice. The Tribunal had no sufficient evidence before it in this case and it ought to have investigated the rent in the neighborhood of the suit premises following the case of Mwantanga bin Selemani v. Douglas Je Meeleck 1968 H. C. D. 506 The record does not show that the Tribunal actually did so and recorded its observations.” (3) Appeal allowed.