By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the President under subsection (2) of s. 10 of the Land Ordinance, we are of thefirm view that his reasoning on the matter equally applies to a decision madeunder the provisions of subsection (1) of the section.Support for the principle of law stated by the learned author S.A. de Smith, whichhas been set out supra, is to be found repeated in all the important cases on thussubject reported in Law Reports. Suffice here, to refer to only one Englishdecision which dealt with a matter which is analogous to the case with which weare now concerned. The case is Congreve v Home Office. (1976) Q.B 629. Thatwas a case in which the British Home Secretary claimed to revoke the atelevision licence- an overlapping licence- for which Mr. Congreve, a solicitor in acity firm, had paid a license fee of pound 12 in advance. He claimed to revokethe lincence by a section in an Act of Parliament which gave him a power torevoke it is certain circumstances. The judge at first instance held that the HomeSecretary could do it but the Court of Appeal held that he could not. In the Courtof Appeal LORD DENNING, M.R., deal with the Home Secretary’s contention asfollows:-But now the question comes: can the Minister revoke the overlapping licensewhich issued lawfully? He claims that he can revoke it by virtue of the discretiongiven him by s 1(4) of the Act. But I think not. The licensee has paid pound 12 forthe 12 months. If the licence is to be revoked and his money forteited – theMinister would have to give good reasons to justify. Of course, if the licensee haddone anything wrong-if he had given a cheque for pound 12 which was642