in the case of Adeodata Kekitinwa & 3 others vs Edward Wakida [1999] KALR 632 in which the Court of Appeal held: that upon the expiry of the lease, it automatically reverts to “ the controlling authority and the lessee or tenant no longer has any legal right on the property and is a mere trespasser.” This case is distinguishable. There is no evidence on record showing that upon expiry of the lease, that the lessor gained re-entry on the suit land. respondent‘s The lessor had never challenged the equitable interests in the suit respondent’s land. In reply Counsel for the respondent submitted that though the lease of the suit land had expired, the interests in the suit land were still continuing. respondent’s In his arguments he supported the judgment of the trial Chief Magistrate. I agree with this submission on that legal point. I have read the evidence and judgment of the trial Chief Magistrate and I find his decision on the issue valid and convincing. A holder of an expiry lease has superior interest in the land than a third party. In the case of Gabriel Rugambwa & anor vs Ezron Bwambale & anor [1997] I KALR 72, Byamugisha J. (as she then was) held that:- where a lease has expired the lessee remains with some “even interest in the land till the same is dealt with by the controlling authority. Court went a head to state that the expiry of the lease did not turn the land into public land as defined by Section 54 of the Public Lands Act nor did it make the 1st defendant tenant at sufferance. The estate remained vested in him (lessee). In the instant appeal, the case in the trial Court commenced when the lease was subsisting. Possession by the respondent was made impossible by the trespass of the appellant. It would be against the principles of a natural justice for the appellant to take advantage of his own illegality. Moreover, PW3 testified that in
in the case of Adeodata Kekitinwa & 3 others vs Edward Wakida [1999] KALR 632 in which the Court of Appeal held: “ that upon the expiry of the lease, it automatically reverts to the controlling authority and the lessee or tenant no longer has any legal right on the property and is a mere trespasser.” This case is distinguishable. There is no evidence on record showing that upon expiry of the respondent‘s lease, that the lessor gained re-entry on the suit land. The lessor had never challenged the respondent’s equitable interests in the suit land. In reply Counsel for the respondent submitted that though the lease of the suit land had expired, the respondent’s interests in the suit land were still continuing. In his arguments he supported the judgment of the trial Chief Magistrate. I agree with this submission on that legal point. I have read the evidence and judgment of the trial Chief Magistrate and I find his decision on the issue valid and convincing. A holder of an expiry lease has superior interest in the land than a third party. In the case of Gabriel Rugambwa & anor vs Ezron Bwambale & anor [1997] I KALR 72, Byamugisha J. (as she then was) held that:- “even where a lease has expired the lessee remains with some interest in the land till the same is dealt with by the controlling authority. Court went a head to state that the expiry of the lease did not turn the land into public land as defined by Section 54 of the Public Lands Act nor did it make the 1st defendant tenant at sufferance. The estate remained vested in him (lessee). In the instant appeal, the case in the trial Court commenced when the lease was subsisting. Possession by the respondent was made impossible by the trespass of the appellant. It would be against the principles of a natural justice for the appellant to take advantage of his own illegality. Moreover, PW3 testified that in