pg 66
Appeal Court, 8th May, 1941
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme
Court.
Suit settled-Judgment entered
and stay of execution ordered so
long as Debtor pays instalments-Debtor
defaulted-
W
Tit of F,i Fa obtained-Property
sold-Proceeds paid into
Court-Other Creditors had
applied twenty-one days
previously for Writ of Fi Fa-Question
of priority-Rules of Supreme
Court Order
44
Rules
24
and 26-Depends on date of
receipt by Court of application
for writ-Consent judgment gives
no general preference.
Held: Appeal allowed.
There is no need to set out the
facts. Case referred to :-
Ajala v. Akinboro,
11 N.L.R. 130.
A. Alakija
for Respondent.
Ayo Williams
for Appellant.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST, AND GRAHAM
PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
This is an appeal from the
judgment of the Divisional Court
(Butler Lloyd J.) on a question
of competition between two
judgment creditors of J. O.
Agbeyegbe each of whom applied
for a writ of
Fi Fa
against the said Agbeyegbe in
two respective suits in which
they obtained judgment.
The facts are simple and not in
dispute, and the~' may be quite
shortly stated.
pg 67
In Suit No. 81/40 the respondent
was the plaintiff. On 17th
April, 1940, this suit was
settled and the Court record of
the settle as follows:- ment is
" This suit is settled on
the following terms:-
" Plaintiff to have
judgment· for £200 with stay
of " execution while the
defendant pays monthly "£8
6s 8d commencing on 1st
July, 1940. " Defendant
agreeing not to sell or
charge the " land in
question until this judgment
debt is "discharged.
Judgment accordingly. Costs
to " plaintiff assessed at
£8 6s. 8d.
" On failure of defendant to
pay any instalment the "
stay of execution will
automatically be raised."
On 3rd September, 1940, the
respondent applied for a
Writ of
Pi Fa
under the oonsent judgment
of 17th April, 1940, the
judgment debtor having made
default in the instalments.
On 23rd September, 1940, on
the application of the
respondent an order was made
by the Divisional Court
appointing an auctioneer to
sell the judgment debtor's
real property by auction on
behalf of the sheriff. The
property was sold and the
net proceeds of that sale
now in Court are the subject
of this appeal. 'The
respondent claimed in the
Court below, and the Court
below upheld his claim, that
he should have priority over
the appellant, also an
executing judgment creditor
against the same judgment
debtor, in regard to the
said proceeds of the sale
which are insufficient to
pay the amounts due to both
judgment creditors.
The appellant obtained his
judgment against the same
judgment debtor in the same
Court on 1st October, 1938,
and applied for a Writ of
Fi Fa
attaching the property of
the judgment debtor on 13th
August, 1940, that is to say
twenty-one days before the
date of the respondent's
application for a Writ of
Fi
Fa.
Under the Rules of the
Supreme Court Order 44 Rules
24 and 26 the priority of
competing writs of
Fi Fa
depends upon the respective
times of the receipt by the
Court of the applications
for the writ. We agree with
the decision of Kingdon, C.J.
to this effect in the case
of Ajala (XI N .L.R. 130),
and the application of the
appellant for his Writ of
Fi Fa
was received before that of
the respondent in this case
and therefore is entitled to
priority.
The only argument submitted
by respondent's counsel
against this view was that
the consent judgment in his
case had the effect of
giving the respondent
preference over all other
judgment creditors of the
judgment debtor Agbeyegbe.
We are unable to accept that
argument as it would be
obviously absurd to hold
that a consent judgment
embodying a stay of
execution in a suit by A
against B could operate as a
general stay of execution
under judgments
obtained by other creditors
in other suits against B.
In England the position
might be dealt with
differently because of the
Bankruptcy laws there,
but there is no Bankruptcy
law in Nigeria and judgment
creditors ,take priority as
regards proceeds of
execution according to the
respective dates and hours
of receipt of their
applications for Writs of
Fi Fa.
For these reasons we think
the Court below was wrong in
granting the application of
the respondent to withdraw,
in priority to the appellant
the proceeds of sale of the
-landed property of the
judgment debtor Agbeyegbe.
On the contrary we hold
'that the appellant is
entitled to priority over
the respondent.
The appeal is allowed. The
decision of the Court below
is Bet aside including the
order of costs which if paid
must be refunded. The
appellant is awarded costs
in the Court below assessed
at six guineas and costs in
this Court assessed at six
guineas and cost in this
court assessed at thirty
five guineas
|