Ishani v. Nkwama and Ishani Misc. Civ. App. 3-A-70; 16/3/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

 Ishani v. Nkwama and Ishani Misc. Civ. App. 3-A-70; 16/3/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

This is an appeal from the order of the Arusha Township Rent Tribunal fixing standard rent in respect of the appellant’s premises. The grounds of appeal were that: (a) the tribunal erred in disregarding evidence of the appellant and his architect; (b) the tribunal’s ruling and order were arbitrary and contrary to evidence on record; (c) the appellant was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the Government valuer. The record showed that the tribunal fixed a date on which the appellant was to cross-examine the Government valuer but the cross-examination never took place.

Held: (1) “With great respect to the appellant it is not clear how he could reach the conclusion that the ruling was in disregard of the evidence. The ruling itself reads: “after considering the evidence on record, the valuer’s recommendations and paying a visit to the suit premises, the Tribunal fixed standard rent as follows.” It cannot be said from the wording of the ruling that the Tribunal “disregarded the evidence” or that it acted arbitrarily and contrary to the recorded evidence unless the word of the Tribunal is to be doubted. It would be pointed out with promptness that it is not for this court to entertain appeals questioning the integrity of the Tribunal or that of any other juridical body from which appeal to this court lies. The Tribunal need not give reasons for its decision.” The tribunal may act normally provided the informality does not offend against natural. [Citing COLONIAL BOOT COMPANY v. DINSLAW BYRAMJEE AND SONS 19 EACA 125 and FANNCECA v. AMROLIA [1957] EA 263]. (2) “This court has repeatedly reminded the Tribunal that its functions are quasi-judiial and they must for that reason be exercised judicially. Section 9 (10) of the Act creating the Tribunal clearly lays down so. The Tribunal which is graced by the services of a legally oriented secretary should pay due deference to its parent act. Only recently, this court (Georges C. J. presiding) again reminded the Tribunal in the case of Kaderali v. Iceland Milk Bar 1970 H. C. D 234 that “(The act – Section 28) clearly contemplates that both sides to the dealing with facts before the (Tribunal) and controverting them”. In this case the Tribunal flagrantly disregarded its own order, its parent act and the rule audi alteram partem. It cannot be said to act and the rule audi alteram partem. It cannot be said to

have reached its decision judicially in terms of Section 9(10) of its parent act, in denying the appellant opportunity to controvert the Government Valuer, it failed to comply with Section 28 of its parent act as well.” Application remitted to Tribunal with instruction to allow the appellant opportunity to cross-examine.