NATIONAL BANK OF EGYPT, Appellant-Defendant v. NEGm HADDAD, Respondent-Plaintiff
Civil procedure-Attachment-Duties of a non-party ~ho holds goods being
attached-Duties and rights of a party asking for attachment-Effective
date of an order of attachment-Description of property in the order of
attachment-Whether an order of attachment continues to .run-When
the disobeying of an order of attachment is contempt of court
Courts-Contempt of court-Intent necessary
Courts-Contempt of court-Remedies-Whether compensation to an injured
parry can be part of the remedy when the disobeying of an order of attach-
ment causes damages
Plaintiff began a suit in May, 1920 against one. Contonifisio for breach
of contract, and in November, 1920 the High Court ordered an attachment
of certain goods owned by Contonifisio and held by defendant bank in Port
Sudan. The goods were in another's rtame and the' bank informed the
court that it held no such goods as described in the order of attachment.
The plaintiff subsequ~dy obtained judgement against Conlonifisio,' but
failed to execute the jUdgement. The plaintiff then brought this action;· The
Court of Appeal fpund for the defendant bank, holding that: (1) upon -the
evidence, the bank did not have knowledge of Contonifisio's ownership, or
any reason to/know of it; (2) the bank had no duty towards the plaintiff
as a matter-of negligence; (3) although perhaps the plaintiff would have an
action if,-;1.i· could show intent to defraud, there was no evidence of such
• Coui/t: Bell C.J., Owen and-Hamilton-Grierson
being the case; (4) the bank had no duty to conduct an investigation as to-
the ownership of any goods it held; (5) the defendant was not in COD-
tempt of court because intent to disobey the order was not shown; (6) even
if plaintiff could show contempt of court, this would not give him any right
to compensation.
Arrest and Attachment Ordinance 1915, s, 8.
Civil Justice Ordinance 1900, SS. 81 and 131.
Appeal
The facts of this case as they appear from the record are as
follows:
In May, 1920 the plaintiff Negib Haddod, started an action 'in
the Khartoum High Court against Contonifisio Crepi Venete Lombardi
and Yousif Hakim, for £E.1850 damages for breach of contract to
deliver 200 bales of cabot. On-November 11, 1920 Negib Haddad
applied to the court in these terms:
"Whereas the first defendant is an Italian firm and possesses no
property in the Sudan with the exception of. 300 bales of cabot now
in the hands of the National Bank of Egypt at Port Sudan .
hereby request that an. order is given attaching 200 bales of. the said
goods pending the hearing of the action."
On November 21, 1920, the court made an order in the follow-
ingterms: