De Soysa Et Al. V. The Attorney General

 

1941     Present: Moseley S.P.J. and Keuneman J.

 

DE SOYSA et al. v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

 

101-D. C. (Inty.) Colombo, 490.

 

Loan Board Ordinance (Cap. 280), s. 20 (2)-Liability to pay interest-Money credited to revenue-Common law.

 

There is no liability either under the Loan Board Ordinance or under the Common Law to pay interest on a sum of money paid to the Public Revenue under section 20 (2) of the Ordinance from the date of such payment to a person establishing a claim under the proviso to that section.

 

The words " claim, as well the principal money as the interest due thereon" refer to the money originally on deposit and the interest which it has earned under the administration of the Board.

 

Saffra Umma v. Attorney-General (2 Cur. Law Rep. 115), referred to.

 

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo. The facts appear from the judgment.

 

H. H. Basnayake, C.C., for the appellant.-The case of Saffra Umma v. Attorney-General[1 2 Cur. Law Rep. 115.] is not an authority for the proposition that interest is payable by the Crown on a deposit after it has been paid over to the Deputy Financial Secretary' under section 20 (2) of the Loan Board Ordinance. The question of interest did not arise for decision in that case and cannot be regarded as a binding authority (Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 19, paragraph 556, and Osborne v. Rowlett (13 C. H. Div. 774).

 

The Ordinance does not prescribe the interest to be paid by the Crown and it is not liable therefore to pay interest. Interest is payable only where there is an express agreement to pay interest or where an agreement to pay interest can be implied. (23 Halsbury's Laws of England (Hail-sham ed.), paragraph 254, and Vander Leuwen, vol. II., p. 61 (Kotez) ).

 

The words "such claim, as well the principal money as the interest due thereon " refers to the amount paid under section 18 (2) to the Deputy Financial Secretary.

 

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him N. M. de Silva), for respondent.-The case Saffra Umma v. Attorney-General (supra) is completely in point. There the Supreme Court under similar circumstances allowed interest. The matter must have been considered in that case even though there is no note of it in the argument.

 

The proper section of the Loan Board Ordinance which applies to this case is not section 20 but section 22.

 

The money in this case being the balance of some fidei commissum money was money in Court over which only the Court had power. It was under the orders of Court that money went to the Loan Board. Therefore the Loan Board is accountable to the District Court for all moneys placed in deposit by the orders of Court.

 [

Click Here to Read the rest of this document