-apparently so, according to the Public Health Ordinance
DURING  1961, De Rusche, who built a  chicken pen without permission or the approval of the local sanitary  authority,  was charged and convicted  of the offence of creating a building, contrary to the Public Health Ordinance.
De Rusche appealed against the conviction and sentence by a Magistrate, and had his appeal dismissed by the Full Court, constituted by Chief Justice J. A. Luckhoo and Justice Guya Persaud.
Dismissing the appeal, the Full Court held that such a structure falls within the definition of the word ‘building’ in Section 2 of the Ordinance.
The appellant  was convicted  of the offence  of erecting a ‘building’,  namely  a  chicken pen, without the approval  of the local sanitary  authority,  contrary  to Section  136  of the Public Health Ordinance,  Chapter  145.
On appeal, it was argued on his behalf  that Part XII of the Ordinance, of which Sections  136 and 141 formed part,  was  devoted to housing  and  district planning  and did not contemplate  structures such as a chicken pen.  
Section 141 provides that:
“The Board may make regulations with respect to the erection and sanitary control  of buildings, and in particular  with regard to the keeping of domestic animals and the distance of any stable, pen, byre, sty or manure  heap from the building…”
Section 2 defines ‘building’ to include:
“…any  house,  kitchen, storeroom,  garage  or  other  outhouse, or part thereof, being part of the premises, whether  permanent or  temporary.”
In dismissing the appeal, the Full Court  held that such a structure falls within the  definition of the word ‘building” in Section 2 of the Ordinance.
Before the Full Court,  Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashton Chase appeared for the appellant, while  Dr.  M.  Shahabuddeen appeared amicus curiae.
Delivering the judgment of the Court,  Justice Luckhoo said:
“The facts,  as found by the Magistrate in  this matter,  are that the appellant  erected a new structure  measuring 22 feet by 13 feet  6 inches,  with a roof sloping from 7 feet  to  6 feet  6 inches  at Lot 630, East Ruimveldt, and that he used that structure as a chicken pen.
“The evidence is that the structure has been erected over a new concrete floor, and stands on new uprights.  It is accepted that the permission of the local sanitary authority was not obtained for its erection.
“As a result, the appellant was prosecuted for erecting a building without approval, contrary to Section 136   of the Public Health Ordinance, Chapter 145, whereupon he was convicted, and  an order was made  for the structure to be taken down.   It is against the conviction  and order that this appeal is brought.
“The short point to be decided is whether the structure falls within the definition of the term ‘building’ as set out in Section 2 of Chapter 145. There, ‘building’ is defined to include          “any house,  kitchen, storeroom, garage or other out-house,  or part  thereof  being part of any premises, whether permanent  or temporary.”
The Chief Justice went on to say in his judgment: “Counsel for the appellant  argues that Part XII of the Ordinance,  of which Sections  136 and 141 form part, is devoted to  housing  and district planning, and therefore does not contemplate structures such as a chicken pen. 
“He submits that although the appellant might have committed some other offence, there was no contravention of Section 136.  Counsel has prayed in aid of the interpretation of Section 136, the provisions of Section 141.
“He contends that Section 141 authorises the making of regulations relating to buildings intended for human habitation only, and that this to be gathered from the scheme of Part XII as a whole.   For the purpose of this case, reference may be made to para. (d) of Section 141:
“The Board may make regulations with respect to the erection and sanitary control of buildings, and in particular with regard to the keeping of domestic animals and the distance of any stable, pen, byre, sty or manure heap from any building.
“We are of the opinion that para (d)  of Section  141 contemplates  a  structure such as  the one which is the subject matter of this appeal,  and that such a structure  falls within the definition  of the word ‘building’ in Section 2  of the Ordinance.
“The Public Health Ordinance  is an ordinance  to make provision  for promoting  the public health of the Colony, and we feel, as was said  in Super Sites Ltd. V- Keen, [1938] 2 All E.R. 471, that in making his decision,  the magistrate is entitled  to take into consideration  the mischief against  which  the section  in which the word  was directed.
“In Collins v- Greenwood (1910),  103 L’T.R. 36, it was held that a stable  was not a ‘domestic building’, within the meaning of the definition  laid down in a particular by-law, which was one of a group  under  the heading,   ‘The Sufficiency  of Space  about Buildings to Secure a Free Circulation  of Air, and with Ventilation  of  Buildings’.
“The by-law prohibited the erection of a ‘new domestic building’, unless certain conditions  were complied with ‘Domestic building’ was defined  by that by-law as meaning:
‘A  dwelling-house or an office building or other out-building apartment to a dwelling house,  whether attached thereto  or not, or a shop  of any other building not being a  public building, or of the  warehouse class.’
“As indicated above, we are of the view that the decision of the Magistrate should stand undisturbed. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction and order affirmed.”