Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Boustani v. Elmadi, 1933

[breach of contract, lawyers]

Boustani v. Elmadi

Court of Appeal, Palestine
Khaledi and Frumkin JJ, 1933
Source: Source: The Palestine Post, 4 January 1933




Before the Senior Puisne Judge, Mr. Justice Khaledi and Mr. Justice Frumkin.

BOUSTANI v. ELMADI (No. 63/32)


   The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Advocate Wadi Boustani in this case, which he brought against the advocate Mahmood el Madi, claiming from him the sum of £P. 300.

   Boustani alleged that Wadi has asked him for his assistance in 3 cases, which Wadi had, on the terms that the sum of £P. 200 was to be paid to Boustani on the signing of an agreement, and the sum of £P. 300 on the termination of any one of the cases.  An agreement was signed between them to that effect and £P. 200 was paid accordingly.  Afterwards one of the cases was disposed of, and Boustani then claimed the 300 pounds.  On Maid's failure to pay the money, Boustani sent a notarial notice to the effect that if Madi failed to pay the 300 pounds, he would consider the contract between them as dissolved.

   Boustani then followed the notarial notice by a claim, which he lodged in the District Court of Haifa for the 300 pounds.  The District Court, however, dismissed the case.

 Security for Costs

At the outset of the appeal a question arose as to the security for costs. It was alleged that the Appellant had not given security in accordance within the terms of Article 186 of the Ottoman Code of Civil Procedure.  Further the Respondent contended that the attention of the Appellant had been drawn to this fact, but that the Appellant had taken no steps to comply with the article concerned.

   The Court held that on the facts of the case, and in accordance with the ruling given in the Land Appeal No. 73/32, the Court would not grant to the Appellant a delay to enable him to put his security for costs in order.  It would, however, allow the Appellant to pay into Court there and then a deposit to cover the costs.  The sum fixed was £P. 10, which the Appellant paid forthwith.

Appeal Dismissed.

   After the Appellant had closed his case, the court without calling upon the respondent, dismissed the appeal on the ground that as the Respondent had himself declared that the contract was dissolved, he could not sue on it.  He had had, however, another alternative, but he had failed to avail himself of it.  He could have continued to work for the Respondent and them he could have sued him for the money.  But he did not do this, and therefore his claim failed.

   The Appellant appeared in person; the Respondent was represented by Mr. Cattan.

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