Fatuma Ally vs Aboud Salim Al -Amry (Misc. Civil Appeal 6 of 1994) [1996] TZHC 25 (18 March 1996)

Key Facts

Issues

• The appeal argued that the appellate tribunal demonstrated manifest bias against the landlord (appellant) and in favor of the tenant (respondent) by disregarding the tenant's offer to pay Shs. 6,000 per month and failing to uphold the trial Tribunal's findings of fact.
• The court examined if the Housing Appeals Tribunal correctly reduced the rent from Shs. 10,000 to 2,000 per month, assessed in 1988, considering the lack of a valuation survey, inflationary changes between 1988 and 1994, and whether the trial Tribunal's original assessment was speculative or arbitrary.
• The court addressed if the landlord (appellant) implicitly or explicitly consented to the tenant's renovations (costing Shs. 120,540) and whether Section 35 of the Rent Restriction Act obligated the landlord to maintain the premises, including security upgrades like iron doors and grills, or if the tenant's costs should be reimbursed.
• The court evaluated if the trial Tribunal acted ultra vires by fixing a Shs. 10,000 rent without a valuation survey, and whether the appellate tribunal properly applied Section 17 of the Rent Restriction Act regarding re-assessment requirements.
• The case considered whether the appellate tribunal erred in determining that the landlord was legally responsible for the tenant's renovations, including security fixtures, and if the tenant was entitled to reimbursement despite lacking explicit consent from the landlord.

Holdings

• The appellate tribunal correctly reduced the rent from Shs. 10,000/- to Shs. 2,000/- as the original assessment was speculative and lacked valuation survey support. The decision to reject the higher rent was not biased, as the landlord had not applied for a re-assessment under the Rent Restriction Act.
• The court ruled that renovations (iron doors, grilled doors) became permanent fixtures of the premises, entitling the tenant to a refund of Shs. 120,540/-. While the landlord did not explicitly consent, the judge found it equitable to refund as the improvements benefited both parties and were not removable.
• The judgment of the appellate tribunal was upheld in full, finding it aligned with legal and factual requirements. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the appellate tribunal's authority to correct the trial tribunal's findings under Section 42 of the Rent Restriction Act.

Remedies

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court held that the trial tribunal acted ultra vires by fixing rent without a valuation survey as required by Section 17 (6)-(9) of the Rent Restriction Act. This established that tribunals must adhere to statutory procedures for rent assessments.
• The court determined that renovations (iron doors, grilled door) had become fixtures of the premises. Since these could not be removed, the landlord was required to refund the tenant's costs under equitable principles, distinguishing between necessary repairs and permanent improvements.

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• All said and done, I find the judgment of the appellate tribunal in line both in fact and in law and I cannot fault it. I uphold it and dismiss the appeal with costs.
• The law, Section 12 (1)(b) of the Rent Restriction Act 1984 empowers the Regional Housing Tribunal to determine or assess standard rent either through an application or in its own volition. In this particular case there was no application to that effect and the Regional Housing Tribunal after visiting the suit premises went ahead to fix a Shs.10,000/= rent per month without proper update valuation being done on the premises.
• I find myself inclined to agree with the appellate tribunal that some of the renovations carried out by the respondent cannot be properly termed repairs. Indeed they have now become part and parcel of suit the premises such that if the respondent tenant were to vacate, he would not remove or detach any of the fixtures and renovation materials.