Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Muradian v. Tuma, 1931

[enforcement of foreign judgments]

Muradian v. Tuma

Court of Appeal, Palestine
1931
Source: The Palestine Bulletin, 2 October 1931

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

DISTRICT COURT PRESIDENT'S DECISION SET ASIDE.

Reciprocal Enforcement with Egypt.

In the court of Appeal on Monday, Jacob Muradian won his appeal for the setting aside of a judgment given by the President of the District Court of Haifa and involving a question of enforcing a judgment by an Egyptian Court under the Reciprocal Enforcement Law.  The ground on which the appeal was made and won is that such a case must be heard by the District Court as ordinarily constituted and not by the President of the court sitting alone.

   The appellant was Jacob Muradian, the respondent Jacob Murad Tuma, and the Judges in the appeal Mr. Justice Corrie, Mr. Justice Francis Khayat and Mr. Justice Mustafa Khaldi.  Abcarius Bey appeared for the Appellant, and for the Respondent Sheikh Said Kassab of Haifa.

The Judgment.

The full text of the judgment as delivered by Mr. Justice Corrie is as follows:

   Upon the application of the Respondent Jacob Murad Tuma, the President of the District Court at Haifa, on the 16th of September, 1930, ordered that a judgment given by the Courts of Ezebekieh, Egypt, in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant Jacob Muradian be registered in the District Court Haifa, under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (Egypt) Ordinance 1929.  The Appellant applied to have the registration set aside.  The application was heard and dismissed by the President District Court Haifa sitting alone.

   The Appellant now appeals on the ground that an application under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (line missing) registration set aside is to be heard by the District Court as ordinarily constituted and not by the President District Court sitting alone.

   We hold that the appeal must be allowed.

   Section 3 of the ordinance requires that application shall be made to the District Court.  It is clear that the Ordinance contemplates the same procedure as is in force under the civil Procedure, Reciprocal Enforcement of judgments Ordinance 1922; namely that an order for registration shall be made ex parte and notified to the judgment debtor; who shall have the right to apply within the period superficies in the order, to have the order set aside.

   Section 5 of the 1929 Ordinance provides that the order in the ex parte proceedings shall be made by the President District Court sitting alone; but the application to set aside the order must clearly be an application to the District Court and in the absence of provisions to the contrary must be heard and determined by the District Court as ordinarily constituted for the hearing of Civil actions.

   The appeal must be allowed, the judgment of the President District Court set aside, and the case remitted to the District Court for hearing.

   Costs of this appeal will follow the event.

 

Source: The Palestine Bulletin, 4 October 1931

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

DISTRICT COURT PRESIDENT'S DECISION SET ASIDE.

Reciprocal Enforcement With Egypt.

  In the Court of Appeal on Monday, Jacob Muradian won his appeal for the setting aside of a judgment given by the President of the District Court of Haifa and involving a question of enforcing a judgment by an Egyptian Court under the Reciprocal Enforcement law.  The ground on which the appeal was made and won is that such a case must be heard by the District Court as ordinarily constituted and not by the President of the Court sitting alone.

   The appellant was Jacob Muradian, the respondent Jacob Murad Tuma, and the Judges in the appeal Mr. Justice Corrie, Mr. Justice Frances Khayat and Mr. Justice Mustafa Khaldi.  Abcarius Bey appeared for the Appellant and for the Respondent, Sheikh Said Kadar of Haifa.

   The Judgment.

   The full text of the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Corrie is as follows:

   Upon the application of the respondent Jacob Murad Tuma, the President of the District Court Haifa, on the 16th of September 1930, ordered that a Judgment given by the Courts of Ezebekieh, Egypt, in favour of the respondent against the Appellant Jacob Muradian be registered in the District Court Haifa, under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (Egypt) Ordinance 1929.  The Appellant applied to have the registration set aside.  The application was heard and dismissed by the President District Court Haifa sitting alone.

   We hold that the appeal must be allowed.

   Section 3 of the Ordinance requires that applications for registration shall be made to the District Court.  It is clear that the ordinance contemplates the same procedure as is in force under the Civil Procedure., Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance 1922: namely that an order for registration shall be made ex parte and notified to the judgment debtor; who shall have the right to apply within the period specified in the order, to have the order set aside.

   Section 5 of the 1929 Ordinance provides that the Order in the ex parte proceedings shall be made by the President District Court sitting alone; but the application to set aside the order must clearly be an application to the District Court and in the absence of provisions to the contrary must be heard and determined by the District Court as ordinarily constituted for the gearing of Civil actions.

   The appeal must be allowed, the judgment of the President District Court set aside and the case remitted to the District Court for hearing.

   Costs of this appeal will follow the event.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School