Case No.:

PC-REV-I 10-1958 (Ed Darner)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1962

Principles

·  Pre-.emption—Deposit by plaintiff of purchase price not required for bringing action Pre.emption—Price of land—When dispute as to price exists, this should be an issue of fact to be decided

The plaintiff in a pre-.emption action need not deposit the purchase price with the court in order to proceed. Any dispute as to price should be put in issue and decided by the court.

Judgment

(PROVINCE COURT)

ABDALLA BAKHEIT IBRAHIM v. SAFI EL DIN AHMED AND OTHERS

PC-REV-I 10-1958 (Ed Darner)

Osman El Tayeb P.1. December 23, 1958: —This is a case of pre- emption. Before framing the issues the learned District Judge ordered

pl to deposit in court the purchase price within a period of three weeks. Plaintiff was able to deposit part of the purchase price. At the same time he has been disputing the price on with the agreement of sale was registered as being not the true price of the land and not that paid by the purchaser to the vendor. But on his failure to deposit in court that whole price the learned District Judge dismissed his case-

I should say that the District Judge was wrong for two reasons. First, it is not an essential ingredient in a pre-emptiot3 suit that the purchase price should be deposited in court in order to allow it to proceed. There is nothing in the Pre-emption Ordinance which causes the loss of the right, had plaintiff not deposited the purchase price in court before judgment. It is only after judgment and after the period specified in the decree for payment that the plaintiff loses his right. 1w the decree payment of the purchase price must be ordered, and essentially a period must be allowed for payment, but it must be the least possible, I think a maximum of one month may be allowed. Secondly, in case that there is a dispute as to the price, it must be put in issue and decided. ft. not infrequently, happens that a vendor and purchaser. when they feel the presence of a tenacious pre-emptor, agree to put in the deed of sale a price much higher than the actual one, for the purpose of hindering the potential preemptor from claiming.

In the circumstances the decree dated July 16, 1958, is set aside and the case is sent back for hearing and determination on the merits.