Civil Procedure-Attachment-Order issued by Egyptian. Mixed Court-s-Saisie
arret served in Sudan

Jurisdiction-Foreign attachment order=-Saisie arret issued by Egyptian Mixed
Court and served in Sudan

• Court: Flaxman J.

An order of saisie arret was served upon the Public Works Depart-
ment. Sudan Government, by a process server of the Cairo Mixed Court at
the instance of tbe defendant company, purporting provisionally to attach
monies held for the account of one Hussein Fadlalla.

Held: Judgements and orders of foreign courts cannot, except by spe-
cific enactment, bind persons or bodies in the Sudan, and the Egyptian
order of saisie arret is inoperative in the Sudan.

Egyptian Judgements Ordinance 190 I.

Action

February 7, 1939. Flaxman J.: This case has arisen out of the
service of an order issued on September 15, 1938, by a process
server of the Cairo Mixed Court upon the Department of Public Works,
Sudan Government, at the insistance of the defendant company. The
order takes the form of a saisie arret, purporting provisionally to attach
monies etc., held or to be held by the Public Works Department for
the account of one Hussein Fadlalla up to a sum of some £E.2000,
and purports to render the plaintiffs liable to the defendant company
should such monies etc. to paid over to Hussein Fadlalla.

The plaintiffs claim that the order is inoperative and of no effect
in the Sudan, and, having monies due to Hussein Fadlalla which, if
not paid, may seriously prejudice the carrying out of certain works,
ask for a declaration by this court wbich will protect them in regard
to such payments. The defendants, in a letter addressed to this court
through their advocate, impliedly admit that the order above referred
to was issued at their instance, and tbat, although their claim against
Hussein F adlalla has been safeguarded by a payment to the Mixed
Court, they have taken no steps to obtain a fresh order for release of
the above saisie arret.

The learned Advocate General has thus first been concerned to
show that the procedure of the Mixed Courts requires a formal act
for the withdrawal of a saisie arret; for otherwise, in view of the
satisfaction of the debt due to defendants, the continuance of this
action would serve only to establish a precedent which migbt be
followed should similar orders be served in this manner in future.
Expert evidence has been called to show that a formal release of a
saisie arret is necessary before it becomes ineffectual. Such a release
bas not been given, and the plaintiffs are entitled to assert that their
position is still in doubt.

It is thus necessary to consider whether or not the order served
upon the plaintiffs is one which is effective in this country. It assumes
a jurisdiction in the Mixed Tribunal of Cairo to serve, through one of
its officers, an order. upon a person residing or carrying on business
in this country and relating to property here, under pain of penalties
in the event of non-compliance.

As I have noted elsewhere in the record this case is being deter-
mined in default of appearance, the defendants not having taken
the opportunity to appear and contest it. A special and close relation-
ship exists between Egypt and the Sudan, but, even if the defendants
had appeared and argued this case, I cannot conceive that they could
have shown any power in the Egyptian courts to enforce an order
of provisional attachment of property in the Sudan. Even if the
Egyptian code of procedure permits service of orders of attachment
without the limits of that country, the provisions of the code, except
by express agreement, cannot be binding upon bodies or persons here.

The learned Advocate General has shown by what means and
authority the exclusive power of the Governor General of the Sudan
to legislate for this country arises. I am not aware of any law
promulgated by the Governor General of the Sudan which confirm
any powers of an Egyptian Tribunal to serve and enforce orders
directed to persons in this country for the attachment of property here.
The need for some agreement between Egypt and the Sudan relating
to the recognition of certain judgements obtained before Egyptian tri-
bunals has been recognised and given effect to in the Egyptian
Judgements Ordinance 1901. This Ordinance refers to judgements
only, and expressly excludes any judgement against the Sudan Govern-
ment or the official acts of its officers from its application. It is silent
as to questions relating to proceedings before judgement, but I refer to
it, as it at least shows that any judgem~-t- of the Mixed Tribunals
arising out of any non-execution in the Sudan of the order of saisie
arret by the plaintiffs in this action would not be enforceable or
executory here.

I am not strictly concerned with whether or not the order issued
through the process server of the Mixed Court at Cairo was an order
in accordance with the procedure governing that Court's acts. I
have however been referred to article 476 of the Procedure Civile
Mixte, which relates to orders for attachment of property in the
hands of persons residing out of Egypt. The Article enacts that such
attachment shall be made "dans les formes du pays ou elles