Case No.:

AC-.REV-220-1957

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Civil Procedure Justice Ordinance. s. 201 (1) (b)—Does nor protect baker from attachment of box car

Civil Justice- Ordinance. S,201 (1) (b), protecting the smail farmer or artisan from attachment of tools necessary to h livelihood, does not protect a baker. Possessing .1 box car. bicvcles .and carts for delivery, from attachment of his box car .
 

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

MILAD MASSIHA GADDIS v. HEIRS OF KISHA ABDEL SALAM

AC-.REV-220-1957

M. 1. El Nur J. December 11, 1957 : —Applicant is a baker. Upon execution of a decree against him for recovery of £ his box car was attached. He objected to the District Judge executing the decree on the grounds that the box car is not subject to attachment in execution as it is necessary for distribution of his bread to his customers and therefore necessary for his trade as baker. The District Judge rejected the application on the grounds that a judgment-debtor who distributes his daily bread by a box car, a cart and bicycle must be a person well-off enough to pay his debts. The District Judge therefore ordered the sale to go through.

Judgment-debtor applied to the Judge of the High Court, Khartoum, for revision and his application was summarily dismissed.

Court M. A. Abu Rannat C. and M. I. El Nut J.

This is art application for revision of the Judge of the High Court’s order. Applicant applies for order staying sale pending decision on his application.

I do not think the application has any merit in it. Civil Justice Ordinance, s. 201 (1) (b), is intended to protect an artisan or small farmer, since the sale of their tools or stock means they would cease to earn a living. But not a baker of such standing as applicant. Though he is using the box car for distribution of his bread he can earn a living even without it. He is using bicycles and carts and even if he has not got them he can acquire such cheaper means.

It is most unfair to the judgment-creditor (respondent) who is owed £S.450 by the judgment-debtor to find that the judgment-debtor is unreason ably protected. Just as applicant is in need of his car so are his creditors who are in greater need of their money.

Subject to the agreement of the Chief Justice this application should be summarily dismissed. The sale should go through as ordered.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. December 11, 1957 :—Application is summarily dismissed.