Land Latv - Pre-enp~i~ - .12E~~~ -lT~.s.~.~.~lity of strict compliance

with Pre-emptJ:.9p. Q!:din~'l_Ce 19²⁸₄ ~~)...L ll....e::..cLl.§.J.U - \fuether
 t ime should~4.1E...2.~A.i.i.E.?!et ion.

Since the common laV1 policy i.:; aGainst disturbing the rights
which normally follow the transfe~ of property by sale, and against
all right of pre-emption, persons attempting to exercise a right of
pre-emption. must strictly comply t-Jith the pr-ovi sd onn. of any ordinance
on that subject. -vnlere the pr-ocedur-es of the Pre .... empt i on Ordinance
1928, SSe 5, '11', and 16{c) are not strictly fo11oNed, in the absence
af extenuating circumstances, all right of pre-emption is lost.

Pre-emption Ordin~'1ce 1928, ss.5, 11 and 16(c).

Revision

.l>e-c.e~njJ~i!·~, 1942;' Shuu:es, 'J, : Thi3 is an application for the revision
of' the decree of the District Judce CXndurman in a pre-emption suit in
wlri.ch the plaintiffs Vlere found to be entitled to a right to pre-empt
as against the second defendant on the sale to the latter of three
undivided.shares in Hosh 2/4/442, Ondurman , The gr-ounds of the
applic~tion are that the learned judge has decided against the weight
of evidence, and that the plaintiffs on the facts established had
renounced their right to pre-empt in respect of the shares in question.

Having rejr'<.l.I'd to the eVidence before the learned judge,. I murrt
confess that I am of the opinion that the defendants did adduce evidence
to show that the plaintiffs '-Jere offered the shares in question, and "-
were unable to purchase them as they had no money, I see no reason

't-ley the evidence of the vondoz- should not be believed, confirmed as it

* Court: Se.ndes, J.

is by that of the merchant El Obeid Ahmed Fadl El Mula, taken on com-
mission at Shendi. However that ma;y be, I do nct decide the application

on this ground, but prefer to do so on the provisions of the ordinance

i taeU. As is well kno~'ID. the common, la~" leans aga.:41st disturbing the
rights which normally follow on the transfer of property by sale, and
against all owning an:! right of pre-emption~ It is therefore reasonable

to hold that those who seek to avail themselves of a right of pre-emption
should comply strictly •... lith the provisions of an:! ordinance in that

regard. In this case it is evident that the plaintiffs knew of the sale
when they lodged their petition to the High Court on December 17, 1938.
This document, . Which. constitutes the .. plaint in the. suit,. is dated. :1)ecember
4, 1938, and cOhtains an admission tJ,t the p~aintiffs had. learned of the
sale. It is not disputed that a.t th<+~ date they had a right of pre-emption
given them by section 5 of the ordinanoe. .Ac~ording to section l6( c) of
the Ordinanoe, they would lose that ~ight if within 15 da;ys of that date
they took no steps to claim pre-emption under section 11· of the same,

orddnanoe., It is also clear from the records of the Land Registry that

they applied to serv.e . pre-emption niotices on the .vendor and purchaser
only on March 15, 1939 that is, more than three months after they had
cognisance of the sale. Those. notices tlere'duly served on March 19,
1939.· Under section 11 they then had 30 days in which.-to raise the pre-
emption suit. But it was not until April.19,. 1939, that is, 31 da;ys
later, that they appl:.ed to proceed and paid the fee. So that at every
stage the plaintiffs appear to me to have been out of time •. It is of
course open to the court to extend the time in certain cases. But no
circumstances appear to exist in this case 'l'lhich might lead the court

to extend its indulgence to the plaintiffs. :.r'hey are of full age, and
are !liVing on the premises, with a civil cour-t and Land Registry within
easy reach. On its merits no such application would succeed.

For the above reasons, therefore, I am Of opinion that the plaintiffs
have lost their right of pre-emption by their allatory methods t only

too evident throughout the oase , and that the ~uit in the court below

should have been dismissed.

There ,..rill therefore be a decree allowin~ the applioationt setting
aside the decree of the District Judge and substitutit;g therefor~ an
order dismissing the suit.

Application allowed.