Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Oufi and others v. Kayeneth and Tayan, 1932

[land law]

Oufi and others v. Kayeneth and Tayan

Court of Appeal, Palestine
1932
Source: The Palestine Post, 13 December 1932

 

IN THE COURTS

COURT OF APPEAL

Before the Chief Justice, The Senior Puisne Judge and Mr. Justice Khaldi.

WADI HAWARETH LAND

ARAB CLAIM DISMISSED

 

Oufi and 173 others v. Keren Kayeneth and Tayan

   The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in the case, where the appellants, some 174 Arabs living near the Wadi Hawareth claimed that a piece of land, 5,000 dunams in extent, did not belong to the Keren Kayeneth as not forming part of the land bought by them through public auction.

   The Land Court sitting at Tulkarem had dismissed the claim of the appellants on the ground that they did not establish their ownership to that part of the land alleged by them as not included in the whole area bought by the Keren Kayeneth.  The Keren Kayeneth, on the other hand, had produced kushans to show the inclusions of the disputed property in the area bought by them.

   In the appeal the appellants repeated their claim to the land.  As they could not prove that ownership lay in themselves, they sought to get a declaration to the effect that the disputed land did not belong to the Keren Kayeneth, as it did not form part of the land bought by them.  The Court of Appeal without calling upon the respondents dismissed the appeal with costs, on the ground that the appellants not having proved ownership of the disputed land were not entitled to claim it from the respondents.

Security For Costs Of Appeal

   At the outset of the appeal the question was raised as to security for the costs of the appeal being given by the appellants.  Counsel for the appellants produced a guarantee sighed by 2 persons one of whom was a Mukhtar who, however, was one of the appellants.  The Court held that this was not sufficient, and asked both Counsel for the appellants whether they were themselves prepared to guarantee the costs if the appeal, which was fixed at L.P. 25 - Counsel agreed and the case proceeded.

   Osman Eff. Bushnak and Auni Bey Abdul Hadi appeared for the Appellants; Mr. Eliash and Mr. Ben Shemesh for the Respondents.

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