Mitha v Taufic (C.A. No. 37 of 1934.)
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 order in objection proceedings under Order 19 r. 55-60 amounts to an adjudication falling within the definition of decree and is appealable as of right. A wakf appointing the donor as trustee and reserving a life interest in the donor's only asset is void under Mohammedan Law. Where the property is a chattel, the instrument creating the wakf is also void for want of registration under the Chattels Transfer Ordinance.
Outcome
Execution against the house to proceed
Facts
The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Mombasa and proceeded to execute by attachment of the respondent's house, her only property, situated on land not her property. Five days after service of summons in the original suit and before appearance was entered, the respondent, an illiterate Swahili woman, executed a wakf instrument purporting to create a wakf of the house. The instrument appointed her as trustee and reserved to her a life interest, with the property to pass to a mosque after her death. The respondent objected to the attachment under Order 19 r. 55, claiming she held the house as trustee of a wakf. The Acting Resident Magistrate upheld the objection and set aside the attachment. The house was valued at Sh. 200.
Issues
- Whether an order in objection proceedings under Order 19 r. 55-60 (as amended in 1933) is appealable as of right without leave.
- Whether a wakf appointing the donor as trustee and reserving to the donor a life interest is valid under Mohammedan Law.
- Whether the wakf was void as a conveyance intended to defeat creditors.
- Whether the instrument creating the wakf required registration under the Chattels Transfer Ordinance.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Decision of the Acting Resident Magistrate set aside.
- Objector having failed to establish her claim, execution against the house to proceed.
- Costs awarded to the appellant here and in the Resident Magistrate's Court.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.2(4)
- Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.34
- Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.65
- Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.83(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 19 r.55-60
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 40 r.1(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 34
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 31
- Chattels Transfer Ordinance 1930 s.13
- Registration of Documents Ordinance Cap. 144
- Cap. 142 s.2
- Cap. 143
Cases cited (3)
- Ratanbai Miyaji v Essufali Gulamhusein (12 K.L.R. 20)
- Seif bin Abdulla v Administrator General (6 E.A.L.R. 74)
- Talibu bin Mwijaka v Executors of Siwa Haji (2 E.A.L.R. 35)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.