Ambrose J:

In this action the District Judge held that the plaintiff, who is a moneylender, had acted oppressively by delaying the institution of proceedings against the defendant for two years and eleven months and thereby causing interest to accumulate at the rate of 480 per annum. On this ground he refused to award the successful plaintiff his costs. In my opinion, what the District Judge regarded as delay did not amount to misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and was, therefore, no ground for depriving the plaintiff of his costs. For this reason I decided that the District Judge had failed to exercise his discretion judicially. I accordingly set aside his order as to costs, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff.

The District Judge made an order for payment of the judgment debt by instalments of $5 per month, basing his order on an offer made by the defendant which was not accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not given the opportunity of cross-examining the defendant as to his means and expenditure. Neither was the plaintiff given the opportunity of rebutting the statements made by the defendant as to his financial position. For these reason I set aside the instalment order.

It remains for me to add that I did not accept the contention of Counsel for the appellant, that the District Judge erred in law in making the instalment order without imposing terms as to security. Counsel relied on s. 79 of the Courts Ordinance which provides as follows:

(1) Where a judgment is given . . . by a District Court under which a sum of money is payable,. . . . the Court may, at any time as it thinks fit, for sufficient reason and on such terms as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks just, order the money to be paid either -

(a) in one sum............. ; or

(b) by such instalments.......as the Court may fix.

It was submitted that the words "on such terms as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks just" mean on such terms as to security or something in the nature of security as the Court thinks just. In my opinion, these words mean on such terms as to security or on no terms as to security as the Court thinks just.

Appeal allowed.