MAHAMADO v. IBRAHIM.

MAHAMADO v. IBRAHIM.

D. C., Galle, 2,398.

Injunction-Power of Supreme Court to grant it-Money paid under sanction of Court--Garnishee order under s. 230 of the Civil Procedure Code-Courts Ordinance, s. 22.

A held an assignment from B of a mortgage bond granted by I to B to secure payment by I to B of a certain sum of money a creditor of B, obtained in an action brought by him a money decree against B, and had a summons under section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code served on I, calling on him to show cause why he should not pay M the sum which he owed M?s debtor, B, on the bond. I, who had notice of the assignment in favour of A, showed no cause, and order was made that he should pay into Court the said sum, He failed to do so, and M there upon obtained a writ against I, and had the property mortgaged by him to B seized and advertised for sale. A then moved the Court to have the writ recalled. The motion was disallowed, and A appealed. Pending the appeal he applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain the sale of the property seized under M?s writ.

Held, that he was not entitled to it, as no irremediable injury was likely to result from the act sought to be restrained, A, in the circumstances, still having his right to recover from I the amount due to him on the assignment.

There is no inherent power in the Supreme Court to issue injunctions. Its jurisdiction to do so is restricted to the cases referred to in section 22 of The Courts Ordinance; and the special circumstances in which such jurisdiction is to be exercised are (1) that irremediable mischief would ensue from the act sought to be restrained; (2) that an action would lie for an injunction in some Court of original jurisdiction; and (3) that the plaintiff is prevented by some substantial cause from applying to that Court.

It is a well established principle that the law will not compel a person to pay a sum of money a second time which he has paid already under the sanction of a Court of competent jurisdiction, but a person seeking to benefit by this principle must have done all that was incumbent on him to resist the payment.

THE facts of the case appear in the judgment.

Layard, A-G., Dornhorst and Wendt, for applicant.

Cur. adv. vult.

21st June, 1895. BONSER, C.J.-

This is an application made ex parte by petition for an injunction to restrain the Fiscal of the Southern Province from selling certain immovable property which has been seized by him under a writ of execution in an action of Mohammadu v. Ibrahim, No. 2,388, District Court of Galle, and from further proceeding

with the said execution pending the decision of an appeal which has been lodged by the applicant.

As I was informed that no injunction had been granted by this Court for many years past, I reserved my decision in order that I might make further inquiry as to the practice of this Court in such matters. This Court has by its constitution no original jurisdiction in civil matters, but section 22 of The Courts Ordinance, 1889, which repeats the language of the Court Charter, provides that the Supreme Court or any Judge thereof shall be and is hereby authorized to grant and issue injunctions to prevent any irremediable mischief which might ensure before the party making application for such injunction could prevent the same by bringing an action in any original Court."

It is to be observed that this is primâ face a limited power, very different from that given by the Judicature Act of 1873 to the English Supreme Court of granting injunctions in all cases in which it shall appear to the Court just or expedient" to do so.

It was suggested by the Attorney-General that there is an inherent power in this Court to issue injunctions, but I am unable to agree with that suggestion, and in my opinion the jurisdiction of this Court is restricted to the cases referred to in section 22 of he Courts Ordinance. If such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document