Civil prooedure - Exeoution - Foreige judgment - Whether decree of
EQptian Sharia court will be exeouted in the Sudano

Civil prooedure - Jurisdict!on .•• Sharia court - Non-Mohammedans-
Aot ion brought in oourt where plaint iff I but not defendant I
residedo

Conflict of laws - Foreign jUdgments - Enforcement- Whether deoree
of Emtian sharia oourt will be exeouted. in the Sudano

The decree of an Egn)tia~ sharia oourt will not be executed in
the Sudan unless the EgyptilUl court properly- had jurisdiction
aooording to Suda.nes~ legal principles, and gave the per-son against
whom it is sought to enforce a judgment an opportunity of appearing
and answering the olaim against him befor-a judgrHEmt \Iaa. pr-onounced ,

Egyptian 'Judgments Ord inance 19011 So 140

Sudan f.tohammedan Law Courts Crdinance 19~ p So 6(1i!.)'

Sudan Mohammedan Law Courts Prooedure Regu1atioos 1916, choII,
part II.

Aoti<m

NO~"ber. 20,' 1941, CumillU. J01 This is an applioation ,for t}~e                                                                             .        

exeoution in the S1ldan of a judgment of an Egyptian oourt 0 the Sharia

Court of AzbaJcy-ia. Th~ matter is governed. by the Egyptian Judgments
Ordinanoe 1901, seotion 14 of whioh reads as follows:

"The judgments of the Egyptian Religious Court shall be reoognised
and enforoed in the Sudan in like manner and subject to the like
oonditiClls so far as the differences in law and procedure between

the Civil and Religious Courts in the Sudan and Egypt respectively
permit as is hereinbefore provided with ref.erenca to the judgments of
other Egyptian Tribuna.lsu"

* ': Court: Cuminge, J.

In acoordanoe with a practioe ad.pted for the benefit of the parties
in these sharia oases, there has been no appearance by the applicant.

The substantial oonditions with which the jud~cts of other
Egyptian trib1.Ulals must comply in order to be exeouto1'7 in the Sudan·
1.Ulder the ordinance are set out in section 8. Shortly they oome to
thi81 that we will reoognise and enforce these Egyptian judgments,
11' thi Egyptian oourt (a) properly had jurisdictian aooording to
our prinoiples, and (b) gave the person against whom it is sought
to enforoe a judgment an opport1.Ulity of appearing and answering the
olaim against him before judgment was pron01.Uloed against him (by
serving him. properly with a oitaticm 1.Ulder the law of Egypt). I am
to apply these oonditions as. far as possible making due allowances
for the differenoe between oivil and sharia law prooedure.

As to (a), a Sudan sharia court would have had no jurisdicticm

in a oase like thi~, brought by one Syrian Catholio against another
on a questian regarding family relationship, by reason of seotian
6(a) of the Sudan MQhamriiedan Law Courts Ordinance 19<1!, because of
the parties not being Mohammedans. And even between Mohammedans

suoh a oourt would have no jurisdiction to hear a olaim for maintenance
by a man against his brother, brougM in the court where the plaint1f'f
resided, and not where the defendant resided, see Book II, Part II of
the Sudan Mohammedan Law Courts Prooedure Regulations 1916, as amended.

As to (b) 11; appears that the defendant reoeived a summons to
appear, but did not do so.

Application dismissed.