9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the declaration of the building as insanitary under Section 57 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, 1927. 2. Whether the respondents acted ultra vires in making the declaration. 3. Whether the respondents were functus officio after submitting the declaration to the Governor in Council. 4. Appropriateness of issuing a writ of prohibition. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Declaration of the Building as Insanitary: The appellants challenged the declaration made by the respondents that their house was insanitary under Section 57 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, 1927. The respondents had declared the house, along with 93 others, to be unfit for human habitation. The appellants argued that the declaration was based on incorrect grounds and that the house did not meet the criteria for being insanitary. The respondents relied on a report by the Acting Municipal Health Officer, which listed several issues such as poor ventilation, inadequate drainage, and improper refuse disposal. 2. Whether the Respondents Acted Ultra Vires: The trial judge, Huggard, C.J., held that the respondents had acted ultra vires by considering matters outside the conditions and construction of the appellants' house. The respondents had taken into account a standard of fitness from a Manual on Unfit Houses by the Ministry of Health in England, which was not applicable to the conditions in Singapore. This led to the conclusion that the respondents were applying a wrong and inadmissible test in making the declaration. The declaration was thus deemed not enforceable. 3. Whether the Respondents Were Functus Officio: The majority in the Court of Appeal (Thomas, C.J., and Terrell, J.) held that once the declaration was submitted to the Governor in Council, the respondents were functus officio, meaning they had no further judicial functions to perform. This implied that the application for prohibition was made too late. However, Burton, Ag. C.J., dissented, arguing that the respondents still had duties to perform, such as appearing before the Governor in Council and potentially requiring the demolition of the building. Therefore, the application for prohibition was not too late. 4. Appropriateness of Issuing a Writ of Prohibition: The trial judge issued a writ of prohibition, preventing the respondents from proceeding further with the declaration. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, but the Privy Council agreed with the trial judge. The Privy Council emphasized that the respondents had acted beyond their powers by applying an incorrect standard. The writ of prohibition was deemed appropriate as the respondents still had duties to perform under Section 61, such as requiring the demolition of the building. The Privy Council restored the order of the trial judge and allowed the appeal with costs. Conclusion: The Privy Council concluded that the respondents had acted ultra vires by applying an incorrect standard in declaring the building insanitary. The declaration was not enforceable, and the respondents were not functus officio as they still had duties to perform. Therefore, the issuance of a writ of prohibition was appropriate. The order of the trial judge was restored, and the appeal was allowed with costs.
|
