By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Our second observation on the above passage is as regards the issue whetherthe decision of the President in this case fell within the ambit of subsection (2) ofs.10. With respect to the learned trial judge, we are unable to find any scintilla ofevidence on record on the basis of which he could have held that the decision ofthe President in the case was made under the power conferred on him bysubsection (2) of s. 10. His holding on the matter becomes even more difficult tounderstand in view of the reasons stated in Exhibit P2.We have now to determine if the decision of the President on this matter can besustained under subsection (1) of s.10 of the Land Ordinance. The determinationof this crucial point really depends on the true construction of subsection (1). Aswe have already observed in this judgment, the power of the President to revokerights of occupancy granted under the Land Ordinance is predicated upon certainconditions being fulfilled or certain evens taking place. Subsection (1) providesthat breach of any one or more of the terms and conditions expressed or impliedin grant of a right of occupancy may constitute good cause for revoking the grant.The subsection further provides that good cause shall include, among othermaters, non-payment of rates and taxes and the abandonment or non-use of theland for a period of five years. See paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of s.10.Mr. Lakha has valiantly argued before us that the reasons given in Exhibit P2constituted good cause for revoking the grant of a right of occupancy held byPatman Garments Industries Limited. We are of the view that Exhibit P2 is clearlyagainst him.640