Boero and Co. (E.A.) Ltd v Mohamed (Civil Suit No. 1742 of 1953)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
An oral application for execution of a decree under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, made after judgment but before decree, is incompetent. Section 94 contemplates an application after decree has been passed, not after judgment but before decree. An application for execution of the principal sum before ascertainment of costs must be made in writing in accordance with Order 21, rule 7(2), not orally in open court.
Outcome
Oral application dismissed as incompetent, though court indicated it would have succeeded on merits if properly made
Facts
The plaintiff company obtained judgment against the defendant under Order 35, rule 2. After judgment was entered but before any decree was drawn up and signed, the plaintiff's advocate applied orally in open court for an order under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance that the decree be executed forthwith before costs were ascertained by taxation, with costs to be executable once ascertained. The grounds were that delays of eight weeks in taxing costs were unavoidable due to pressure of work in the Supreme Court Registry. The court reserved its ruling on whether an oral application was competent.
Issues
- Whether an oral application for execution of a decree under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance is competent when made after judgment but before decree is passed.
- Whether an application for execution of the principal sum before ascertainment of costs should be made in writing in terms of Order 21, rule 7(2).
Orders
- Oral application dismissed.
- No order as to costs of the oral application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Ordinance s.94
- Civil Procedure Ordinance s.25
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 35 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.7(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.7(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 21 r.13
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 20 r.6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 r.1
Cases cited (2)
- Forster v Baker [1910] 2 KB 636 (CA)
- Rothschild v Fisher [1920] 2 KB 243 (CA)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.