Appeal dismissed as abandoned; court confirms Attorney-General consent not needed for Deputy Sheriff attachment.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe appellant abandoned the appeal after reaching an out-of-court settlement with the respondents. The court noted that this procedural abandonment did not preclude it from clarifying the legal principle regarding the attachment of money held by Deputy Sheriffs. The court affirmed that no consent from the Attorney-General is required for such attachments, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IACivil Procedure Law Cap. 6 s. 77; Courts of Justice Law, 1960, sections 11(2), 12(3), 13 and 17; Bankruptcy Law, Cap. 5, section 45(2); Companies Law, Cap. 113 section 306(2) and (4): Consent of the Attorney-General is not required for the attachment of money in the hands of Deputy Sheriffs.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*187] 1970 February 12
(VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
In the matter of the application of
Toumazos Th. Toumazou,
Appellant-Applicant,
and
In the matter of Peristeronopighi
Transport Co. Ltd.,
Respondents.
(Civil Appeal No. 4824).
Civil Procedure - Practice - Attachment of money in the hands of the Deputy Sheriff - No consent of the Attorney- General required - Civil Procedure Law Cap. 6 s. 77; Courts of Justice Law, 1960, sections 11(2), 12(3), 13 and 17; Bankruptcy Law, Cap. 5, section 45(2); Companies Law, Cap. 113 section 306( 2) and (4) Civil Procedure Rules, Orders 40, 41 and 44.
Attachment - Money in the hands of the Deputy Sheriff - No consent of Attorney-General required.
Execution - Attachment of money - See under "Civil Procedure - Practice".
Garnishee proceedings - Attachment of money - See under "Civil Procedure - Practice".
L. Papaphilippou, for the Appellant.
No appearance, for the Respondents.
Mr. Papaphilippou: I apply for leave to abandon the appeal as an out of court settlement was reached between the parties and after I communicated with Mr. Mylonas this morning.
VASSILIADES, P.: The appeal is abandoned and on that ground may be dismissed. This, however, is no reason [*188] why we should cot make use of this case to state for purposes of
record that, as pointed out by the learned trial Judge in his ruling, the consent of the Attorney-General was not required for the attachment in the hands of the Deputy Sheriff.
Since the execution of writs for the seizure and sale of movables, passed from the District Commissioner to the Chief Registrar as Sheriff and to the Registrars as Deputy-Sheriffs, some forty years ago, the matter came under the control of the Courts; and the practice was well settled that the consent of the Attorney-General was not required for
the attachment of the proceeds from such write while under the control of the court officers in question. The reasons are obvious and need no
elaboration. (See section 77 of the Civil Procedure Law, Cap. 6; Courts of Justice Law, 1960, sections 11 ( 2) , 12(3), 13 and 17; Bankruptcy Law, Cap. 5, section 45(2) ; Companies Law, Cap. 113, section 30o( 2) and (4) ; and the Civil Procedure Rules, Orders 40, 41 and 44).
There was no foundation whatsoever, for the appeal against the decision of the District Judge; and the appeal shall be dismissed with costs. It is now for the parties to arrange natters between then as they may think fit.
Appeal abandoned;
dismissed with costs.