AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCUTORY DECREE-INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE- Section 34

-
AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCUTORY DECREE-INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE- Section 34 
                              
                     A W A Salam, J

This is an application to revise and set-aside the judgement and interlocutory decree dated 11th November 2003 entered in the above case.  The facts briefly are that the parties agreed to have the corpus in the action partitioned in terms of the evidence led at the trial without any points of contest being raised.  The plaintiff respondent, 2nd defendant-respondent and the 4th defendant-petitioner gave evidence at the trial.  Subsequently judgement was entered followed
                                                              by      an      interlocutory      decree      to      have      the      corpus
partitioned.  Accordingly the 4th defendant- petitioner was declared entitled to purchase an extent of 10 perches of land from and out of the rights of the plaintiff-respondent so as to include the buildings marked as “1, 2 and h”.
Subsequently, the 4th defendant-petitioner made an application to have the interlocutory decree amended, on the basis that the plantations he was declared entitled to had not been ordered to be included into the lot to be allotted to him. The learned district Judge by his order dated November 11, 2003 refused the application on the basis of section 33 and 34 of the Partition Act. According to the learned judge, the improvements to which the 4th defendant- petitioner has been declared entitled to have been directed to be included into his lot as far as practicable and in the event of the said petitioner not getting the improvements or part thereof is entitled to compensation under section 34 of the Partition Act.  The impugned order of the learned district Judge does not appear to be contrary to law or inconsistent with the evidence led at the trial. In any event the 4th defendant-petitioner has failed to adduce any exceptional circumstances to warrant the conclusion that the judgement and interlocutory decree should be revised.

For the foregoing reasons, I see no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the judgement, interlocutory decree and the order dated November 11, 2003. Hence the revision application filed by the 4th defendant-petitioner stand dismissed subject to costs.


Judge of the Court of Appeal 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more