Appeal Court. 22 April,
1936.
Appeal from Interlocutory
Decision of Court.
Payment
by Order of Privy Council of
costs by an Executor following
an unsuccessful
appeal-Interpretation of Order.
Held: Costs personal unless
Order expressly states
otherwise.
The facts are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
O.
Alakija
for Appellant.
Sir William Geary, Bart.,
for Respondent.
The following judgment was
delivered: WEBBER, C.]., SIERRA
LEONE.
This case was taken to the Privy
Council on appeal by P. H.
Williams, the surviving executor
of the estate of J. R. Shanu,
deceased.
On the motion before the full
Court for leave to appeal,
Counsel for respondent offered
no opposition, but pointed out
that the assets of the estate
were to be safeguarded so that
they were not used to prosecute
the appeal. The full Court
granted leave and made this
order .
•• Subject to any order which
may be made by His Majesty in
Council the appellants shall not
utilise the assets of the estate
for the purpose of prosecuting
this appeal."
The appellant and his
co-executor, now deceased,
entered into a bond holding
themselves and sureties
personally liable in the sum of
£500 to abide costs of the
appeal ..
The case was heard by the Privy
Council and the appeal was
dismissed and the surviving
appellant was ordered to pay
costs.
A motion was made before Graham
Paul, J. :-
(1) For declaration that
Williams was not personally
liable for £209.
(2) That plaintiff-respondent
should follow the estate
distributed to the
beneficiaries including the
plaintiff, and (8) That Williams
be allowed to pay by instalments
and recover from beneficiaries.
Paul, J., held that the personal
property of the mover (the
appellant before the Privy
Council) was not attachable under
the judgment of the Privy Council
and he ordered that the property
attached should be released and
gave to the mover the costs of the
motion.
Against this order E. A. Shanu,
the respondent before the Privy
Council, appealed on four grounds,
namely, that the learned Judge was
wrong in law in holding that the
costs awarded by His Majesty's
Privy Council should be paid out
of the estate of J. R. Shanu,
deceased; that the learned Judge
was wrong in law in not holding
that the surviving appellant was
liable personally for the costs to
the plaintiff-respondent in
accordance with the terms of the
bond entered into by him; and that
the learned Judge was not
competent to add to the judgment
of the Privy Council the words
payable out of the estate" and
that the appellant was now
precluded from moving the Court as
to costs, he not having prayed the
Privy Council that such costs
should be borne out of the estate.
All these grounds were argued
together and the only question in
this appeal is : . How is the
order as to costs made by the
Privy Council to be construed? My
answer to this is, if the Privy
Council had intended that the
costs should be paid out of the
estate of J. R. Shanu, deceased,
they would have indicated that
intention in express terms. The
order is unambiguous, and we are
not competent to vary it so as to
make the estate liable for costs
even if we wished to, which we do
not. It is the universal practice
that where costs are to be paid
out of an estate the order should
be made in express terms and this
practice is followed by the Privy
Council as instanced in a case
reported in the
Nigerian Law Reports,
Vol. 3, page 76,
Tom Jones, deceased, re Shaw v.
Jones
and
Taylor v. Fasanya.
This appeal accordingly succeeds
and the order of the learned Judge
is reversed, and the motion
brought before him should in my
opinion have been dismissed,
except that part of it which asks
for payment by instalments, the
merits of which have not yet been
considered.
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.
I
concur.
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST.
I
concur.
The following Order was made
:-
The appeal is allowed and the
order of the Court below,
including the order as to costs,
is set aside. The appellant is
awarded costs in this Court
assessed at twenty-five guineas
and in the Court below assessed at
three guineas. The respondent is
to be at liberty to apply again to
the Court below for an order upon
that part of his motion which
refers to payment by instalments.
|