By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of the Rent Restriction Act 1984, he would have found that the order inexempting a group of Parastatals instead of a class of premises, it was ultra viresthe enabling provisions. In support of this ground, Mr. Matata submitted that GN.4192 is ultra vires because the relevant enabling section refers to a class ofpremises whereas the exemption in the Order is based on the ownership of thosepremises. We think with respect that this submission is based either on amisreading or partial reading of the section and the order . Section 2 (1) of theRent Restriction Act 1984 provideds2 – (1). This Act shall apply to all dwelling houses and commercial premisesother than;(a) .(b) Any premises or class of premises which the Minister may with theapproval of the National Assembly signified by a resolution, by orderpublished in the Gazzette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of thisAct.And paragraph 3 of the exemption order reads in part:4. All premises in respect of which a specified parastatal is the lawfulReading these two provisions together, we do not see how paragraph 3 of theorder can be considered to be outside the enabling provisions in section 2 (1)(b) of the Act. Under section 2 (1) (2) the minister responsible for lands,Housing and Urban Development can exempt two groups of premises from530