Facts
The plaintiff leased a godown belonging to the defendant for a term of 3 years renewable for a further term of 2 years at a monthly rent of Shs. 13,860/=. It was expressly agreed that in case the plaintiff opted to renew he should give notice to the defendant three months before the expiry of the first term. Relying on the agreement, the plaintiff carried out developments on the property involving substantial sums of money. The plaintiff failed to give the notice within the stipulated time and on opting to renew the lease, the defendant refused. Instead the defendant offered the plaintiff a new lease on a rental of Shs. 65,000/= per month. The defendant had secured orders exempting him from the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act relative to restriction of right of possession and from the Minister for Justice relating to restriction on the amount of rent that may be charged. The latter order was duly approved by the National Assembly as required by law. The plaintiff challenged the Orders as bad in law and the rent as excessive.
Held: (i) The discussion on the option to renew having been made prior to the signing of H the
agreement and their not having been incorporated in the agreement which was presented for signing, the defendant was not estopped from denying his assurances.
(ii) the defendant had a right to refuse to renew the lease since the notice was not present within the time stipulated in the agreement.
(iii) the order by the Minister for lands relating to exemption from restriction of right of possession was bad in law because he did not have powers to issue such orders.
(iv) the order by the Minister for Justice exempting the defendant from the provisions relating to restriction on the amount of rent that may be charged was neither discriminatory nor in breach of natural justice as there is ro requirement that the order should be general nor the tenant should be consulted.
Case Information
Suit dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment