Principles

·  CIVIL PRO CED URE — Jurisdiction Divorce and custody — Sudan High Court has jurisdiction though wife and children in England and child is a ward of Chancery.

·  CONFLICT — Jurisdiction — Divorce and custody — Sudan High Court has jurisdiction though wife and child resident in England and child is ward of Chancery.

·  FAMILY LAW —Jurisdiction — Divorce. and custody -— Sudan High Court has jurisdiction though wife and child resident in England and child is ward of Chancery.

This action for divorce and custody of a child was brought by the husband domiciled and resident in Khartoum against his wife resident with the child in England. The wife challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court on grounds of her residence and that of the child, and on grounds that Chancery in England had ordered that the child ‘do continue to be a Ward of this Court But this Order is without prejudice to any Order which may be made by the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice if and when the intended proceedings between the parties in such Division have been instituted.”
Held: Since the High Court has jurisdiction in suits involving the custody of children whose parents are domiciled in the Sudan, the prior order of Chancery in England making the daughter resident in England a Ward of Chancery does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in this Suit.

This action for divorce and custody of a child was brought by the husband domiciled and resident in Khartoum against his wife resident with the child in England. The wife challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court on grounds of her residence and that of the child, and on grounds that Chancery in England had ordered that the child ‘do continue to be a Ward of this Court But this Order is without prejudice to any Order which may be made by the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice if and when the intended proceedings between the parties in such Division have been instituted.”
Held: Since the High Court has jurisdiction in suits involving the custody of children whose parents are domiciled in the Sudan, the prior order of Chancery in England making the daughter resident in England a Ward of Chancery does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in this Suit.

This action for divorce and custody of a child was brought by the husband domiciled and resident in Khartoum against his wife resident with the child in England. The wife challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court on grounds of her residence and that of the child, and on grounds that Chancery in England had ordered that the child ‘do continue to be a Ward of this Court But this Order is without prejudice to any Order which may be made by the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice if and when the intended proceedings between the parties in such Division have been instituted.”
Held: Since the High Court has jurisdiction in suits involving the custody of children whose parents are domiciled in the Sudan, the prior order of Chancery in England making the daughter resident in England a Ward of Chancery does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in this Suit.

Judgment

Advocates: Mahgoub and Dafalla for petitione

M. Y.Mudawi, P.J.. October 22, 1962:— On June 13, 1962, petitioner Jirair Khatchikian instituted these proceedings against respondent Sylvia Khatchikian for the dissolution of their marriage and the custody of the child of the marriage who was born in Khartoum on March 8. 1957. Petitioner alleged that they are domiciled in this country. It is also alleged by him (and admitted by respondent) that respondent is now together with the child resident in the city of Manchester in England.

When the summons was served on respondent in England her solicitors challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of Khartoum as far as custody is concerned on the grounds that the child is residing with its mother in England and that the Chancery Court of Lancaster made an order placing the child under the custody of the Court. The solicitors further alleged that the Courts of England hase exclusive jurisdiction in the question of custody.

In the opinion of this Court the intention of respondent’s solicitors is not in line with the laws of this country . This Court has undoubted  jurisdiction in suits involving the custody of children whose parents are domiciled in the sudan the court of of the domicil has a pre-eminent though concurrent jurisdiction which in englnad and Scotland must be exercised or the welfare and happiness of an infant on the particular facts 7 Hallsbury law of England 127(3rd ed 1954) as far as the alleged order of the chancery cout of the country palatine of lancester Manchester district is concerned I must say that the said order could not and should not affect the powers of this court to assume jurisdiction and to take such orders as our law allows.

In view of the above the application is dismissed

Editor’s Note: When respondent failed to appear at a hearing before he Hit Court to which . was summoned by service  in England, the High Court on July 23, 1963 granted  a decree nisi of disorce and ordered that the  child, the issue of marriage and ward of chancery in England where she was resident with her mother remain in the custody of petitioner the husband in Khartoum