Case No.:

(HC-CS-4o4-1958)

Court:

The High Court

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Statute—Construction—Whether effect retrospective—Effect on litigation already pending

·  Civil practice and procedure—Effect of statute on pending actions

(i) Statutes do not have retrospective effect unless the statute itself specifically provides for such effect.

(ii) Actions already pending at the time of the passing of an Act are not stopped by it unless there is an express provision to that effect. Effect of Political Parties (Liquidation of Assets) Act, 1959, considered. It does not stop pendant actions, but they are to be defended by the Receiver in place of the dissolved party.

Judgment

(HIGH COURT)

MOHAMED ALI HAMID v. PRESIDEN1 OF PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC

PARTY AND ABDALLA RAHMATALLA

(HC-CS-4o4-1958)

Action: Interlocutory Ruling

Advocates:     Siddik Ahmed Kheir………. for plaintiff

                       Saleh Farah (for Attorney-General)….. for defendants

June 16, 1960. Tewlik Cotran Acting I.: —On May 23, 1959, the Political Parties (Liquidation of Assets) Act was passed and all rights and liabilities of political parties were vested in a receiver.

Sayed Farah for the Attorney-General now applies that the default decree passed by the District Judge against the political party be set aside, and also applies that the name of the party be struck Out on the ground that by virtue of section 7 (1) of the Act all claims should first go to the appointed receiver and it is only when the receiver rejects the claim that a suit can be instituted in the courts.

The Act is silent about suits that are already pending in the courts against ex-political parties. In order to oust the existing jurisdiction of the court there should, in my opinion, be a specific enactment to this effect. The Act simply provided that all claims against political parties should hrst go to the receiver. But what about claims that were already pending before the courts? Was it the intention of the legislature to take them away from the courts’ jurisdiction and vest them in the receiver? Or was the intention that the Act should be effective from the date of its commence ment? I think the general rule is that statutes do not have retrospective effect unless the statute itself specifically provides for such effect. That being the case, in my opinion, claims against political parties must be divided into two groups. If the political party was already (i.e., before May 23, 1959) a defendant in an action, the case will proceed in court except that the receiver will represent the interest of the political party. If no claim was made in court against a political party prior to May 23, 1959, then such claimants must first put in their claims to the receiver and can only resort to the court if the receiver rejects their claims.

In this case the political party was already a defendant before the commencement of the Act of May 23, 1959. In my opinion the case must continue before the courts. The receiver will act for the party.

The default decree is also set aside and the receiver will submit his defence in ten days.   

                                                              (Interlocutory order accordingly)*

* Order confirmed (HC-Rev-35o-r96o)