ST. LUCIA DEVELOPMENT BANK v ELDRIDGE CHARLES

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Suit. 366 of 1990 ST. LUCIA DEVELOPMENT BANK Plaintiff VS ELDRIDGE CHARLES DefE:.ndant Mi ss H. Ali for Plaintiff Mr . M. Michel for Defendant 1996 February 28 April 26 JUDGMENT d ' Auvergne J. On the 28th day of June, 1995 the Applicant / Plaintiff filed a Summons for leave to issue writ of execution against Camella Gloria " Erica Charles (nee Michel ) the Administratrix of the estate of the Defendant Eldridge Charl es upon a Judgment in the sum of $127,948.10 with interes t at the rate of 11 . 5%, 10% collection fee and that the Defendant do pay the costs of the application . This summons was supported by an affidavit of Guy St. Rose who deposed that Eldridge Charl es (hereinafte r called the De f endant ) was indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of 8127 .. 948 . 10 with interest and collection fee and that no part of the said sum had been paid and therefore the judgment remains in full force and is wholly unsatisfied . He further deposed that the Defendant died on the 21st of August, 1 991 and by the 10th of October, 1991 letters of Administrat ion

a ca es (nee 1 On were duly grant to Camella 14th of November 1995 Trevor Lamontagne to a ementary fidavit in ch he stated he as the duties of Guy St. Rose. He further deposed that statement the sa St. Rose No part the said sum of $127,948.10 p~id sa udgment remains full force and is whol unsatisfied was an erroneous statement; act after was , several payments Nere made and t last was made on the 17th December! 1992. He concluded by depos that the balance now outstanalnq unaer judgment, is $121,255.7 and erest t 3 ember, 1995. Summons was he on t 28th of 9 . At the hearing Learned Counsel for the licant stated t t ication was made Order 7 Rule 2 b f Rul s t Supreme Court 1970. Order 67 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 reads as follows: When leave to issue any writ of execution is necessary (a) where six years or more have el since the of the judgment or (b) where any change taken ace, whether de or otherwise in the ies entitled or liable to execut under the judgment or order. (c) where the judgement or r is t t assets f a deceased person coming into hands of s executors or administrators after the date of j or

and is sought to issue execution t such assetsi (d) where under the judgment or any person is entitled to relief ect to t fil f any condit which it s all has filled; (el wb~~e goods to seiz r a t execut are in the hands f a receiver ed the Court or sequestrator. She further quot e 4 (1 (2 t said r reads: An application or eave to issue a it of execut made ex e unless the Court rects it t be made Summons. 2 1 Such an ication must be ed an Affi t. She drew reference t the aff ts f St. Ros and Trevor Lamont and the Letters of stration qranted to camella oria ca es nee 1), dated lOth October, 1991 and entered on t 28th Oct r, 1991. concluded by stat that her lication was th the requirements set by Law. Learned Counsel for Camella Gloria ca Charles, stratrix of estate of the Def ected to t ication being grant and quoted Article 417 of t of 1 Procedure which sLates as flows: "Judgment can only be executed upon the t whom it is rendered. he changes his Civil Status or dies before j is executed, cannot be executed against him nor this sent at s, unless a notice be previously served upon his representat s to

show course execution d not issue, j hereon by the Court or But if the party dies or s s Civil Status ter execution commenced, the execution cont s." He also quoted Rule 2(2 0 the said r s: tlParagraph (1) is t t n~c to any enactment or rULe by rtue of whi a rson is red t obtalD tne eave of the Court the ssue of a t f execut or to proceed to execution." ..... . e '"' .:; 6/2 3 further ed Order 46 es te Book! . Supreme Court 988 ~ 46/2/3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1979 (White Book) states "where the debtor has died, notice f ication must be served on the represent at Counsel for the caht the Court t by Schedule 2 of the es of the Court 1 7 Article 7 was repealed. CONCLUSION: In my Judgment the applicant has the es of the Court 1970 which state how writs of execut may be ssued that reference should made to t ish Rules of t Supreme Court when our own Rules are silent. Moreover letters of administrat were to Camel ica Charles on 28th of October, 1 91 and the on t judgment debt was made on the 17th of ch cates that she is well aware of the judgment

My order is therefore as follows: leave be and is he ed to t icant t issue writ f execution aga Camella a ca Charles strat he estate of the late El cnar~es. there will be no order as to costs. SUZIE d'AUVERGNE PUISNE JUDGE

Suit. No. 366 of 1990 D’Auvergne, J. Delivered: 26/04/96