Ultra vires insanitary housing declaration and prohibition can still issue while unlawful enforcement remains in progress

A statutory declaration that a house was insanitary was ultra vires because the authority applied a general policy standard from an official manual instead of the ordinance's specific test of whether the building was unfit for human habitation by reason of its construction or condition. The defects relied on were treated as matters of convenience or amenity, which did not satisfy that statutory threshold, so the declaration could not stand. A writ of prohibition was also not barred by the matter having been submitted to the Governor in Council, because the authority retained further statutory functions and the writ could still restrain remaining unlawful enforcement steps.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents, in declaring the house insanitary and referring the matter onward, applied a wrong and inadmissible test and thereby acted beyond the powers conferred by the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, 1927. (ii) Whether a writ of prohibition could still issue after the declaration had been submitted to the Governor in Council and the respondents contended that they were functus officio.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents, in declaring the house insanitary and referring the matter onward, applied a wrong and inadmissible test and thereby acted beyond the powers conferred by the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, 1927.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Board to determine whether the particular building was, by reason of its construction or condition, unfit for human habitation. The materials relied upon by the Board, and the chairman's affidavit, showed that the Board had proceeded by reference to a general standard of fitness drawn from an official manual, rather than by applying the statutory test. The defects relied upon were largely matters of convenience, amenity, or remediable conditions, and did not amount to the kind of condition that would justify a declaration that the house was unfit for human habitation. The Ordinance had to be strictly construed because it affected property rights and, once the wrong standard was applied, the declaration could not stand.

Conclusion: The respondents acted beyond their powers and the declaration was ultra vires and unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of prohibition could still issue after the declaration had been submitted to the Governor in Council and the respondents contended that they were functus officio.

Analysis: Submission of the matter to the Governor in Council did not extinguish all jurisdictional consequences of the respondents' unlawful act. The respondents still had functions under the statutory process, including appearance before the Governor in Council, registration of any approved order, and, most importantly, the later power to require demolition under Section 61. Prohibition was not barred merely because an intermediate stage had been reached, and the writ could still operate so long as there remained something for it to control.

Conclusion: The application for prohibition was not too late and the writ could properly issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was restored, and the respondents' declaration and proposed enforcement steps were held to be beyond jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory authority empowered to declare a building unfit for human habitation applies a general policy standard instead of the specific statutory test, its declaration is ultra vires, and prohibition may still issue if any further unlawful enforcement action remains within its control.

---