By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

G.N. 41/92, the second respondent increased rents for all its premises includingthose occupied by the appellants. The appellants objected very strongly to theserent increases which they called unilateral. When their protests were rejected bythe second respondents, they filed an application in the high Court challengingthe validity of both the G.N. 41/92 and the increases of rent based on it. Theappellants challenged the validity of G.N. 41/92 on two grounds.The first ground was that G.N. 41/92 IS ULTRA VIRES THE PARENT Actbecause it exempts specified parastatals instead of a class of premises asprovided by section 2 (1) © of the parent or enabling Act.The second ground was that G.N. 41/92 is unconstitutions for the followingreasons. Firstly that it is discriminatory. That it discriminates the appellants bydepriving them of the protection accorded by the Rent Restriction Act againstarbitrary eviction; distress for rent and the right to statutoty tenancy which isotherwise available to tenants generally and that this discrimination is contrary toarticle 13 (2) of the Constitution of the united Republic. Secondly that it bars theappellants from litigating their rights as tenants in the housing Tribunal and thatthis is contrary to article 13 (3) of the Constitution. Thirdly, that it provides nosafeguards against abuse of power by the second respondent.The appellants challenged the validity of the rent increases by the secondrespondent on the basis that since the order under which they were made isinvalid, such increase were in contravention of section 11 of the National HousingCorporation Act 1990.525