By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Lastly, in ground 5 the appellants contended that had the learned judgeproperly directed himself on the second respondent’s decision to raise rent,he would have found that the second respondent acted arbitrarily andcontrary to the principles of natural justice. In support of this contention Mr.Matata cited a Privy Council decision in an appeal from Canada, Minister ofNational Revenue vs’ Wrights Canadian Ropes Ltd. 1947 AC 109. We thinkthe decision in this case would have been relevant in the consideration of thepresent appeal if the appellants had been challenging the reasonableness ofthe new rents not their validity. They would then in the process have providedthe necessary data or information to support their challenge. Once it is held,as we have done, that the exemption Order by the Minister was perfectly validas it was lawfully made under validly delegated authority, the validity of thenew rents imposed by their landlord under the newly acquired authoritycannot be successfully challenged. In the circumstances we agree with Mr.Magoma that the ony and best course for the appellants to take would havebeen to proceed by way of challenging their landlord to justify the new rates.The learned trial judge did not rigtly attempt to resolve the question whetherthe new rates are reasonable because he had no data or other material toassist in such an undertaking. Accordingly we hold that this head of complaintalso fails.533