(COURT OF APPEAL)·
HASSAN ABDEL RAHMAN vs. SATTI MOHAMED SATTI
AC-Revision-135-58
Summary Revision
Principles
· Recovery of stolen property-Stolen property consumed at date fo conviction of thief-Lost and Property Recovery Ordinance 1924
Where goods are stolen and the thief is subseqently prosecuted to conviction the true owner may recover the value of the goods from any person into whose possession they came, notwithstanding that such person may have parted with possession before the date of action.

Judgment

6th October 1958. Babikir Awadalla J. : - I recommended the summary dismissal of this case which is-in my view- a very simple one.
The claim was one for recovery of the value of four fidwas (gold) purchased by Applicant from a Bernawi young man who had stolen them from Respondent’s house. Applicant paid £S.14 for the fidwas but at the time of arrest nothing was found with the thief but an old bicycle purchased by him for £S.2. Both Applicant and the thief were tried together but Applicant was acquitted. The thief was awarded a very mild sentence of whipping but the bicycle was ordered to be sold and the price paid to Respondent in compensation pro tanto. Respondent sued Applicant for revovery of the gold or its value.
In passing a decree in favour of Respondent, the Medani District Court purported to rely on the rule embodied in section 24 (1) of the English Sale of Goods Act which says “where goods have been stolen and the offender is prosecuted to convition, the property in the goods so stolen revests in the person who was theowner of the goods or his personal representativenothwithstanding any intermediate dealing with them, whether by sale in market overt or otherwise.” The Province Judge Bule Nile Province dismissed an application to him summarily.
I think the matter is not governed by the rules of English law invoked under section 9 Civil Justice Ordinance, but by Sudan enactments. Rule II of section 3 of the Recovery of Lost and Stolen Property Ordinance 1924 says “when any person has been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in Rule 1 the original owner of the stolen property may, subject to the limitation of time mentioned in Rule 1 (i.e.three years) recover the property from any person in whose possession it is without paying any compensation.”
It is ture that our Ordinance speaks of “property” which is defining in section 2 to mean movable property only and does not specifically include the “value” of the property in case it is consumed, bu I would rather have the analogy made to our Ordinance than to the rules of English law. So I think that at least by analogy to Rule II of section 3 of the Recovery of Lost and Stolen Property Ordinance the Respondent was entitiled to the relief claimed.
(Application dismissed)