HARIT EFF. HASSAN FEDAYI ν. MULLAH MUSTAFA MULLAH HUSSEIN KOUMBI (V10) 1 CLR 17

HARIT EFF. HASSAN FEDAYI ν. MULLAH MUSTAFA MULLAH HUSSEIN KOUMBI (V10) 1 CLR 17 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων (V10) 1 CLR 17 1910 December 2 [TYSER, C.J. AND BERTRAM, J.] HARIT EFFENDI HASSAN FEDAYI v. MULLAH MUSTAFA MULLAH HUSSEIN KOUMBI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT-AGREEMENT TO BREAK THE LAW-MEJELLE, ART. 1610-AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF UNQUALIFIED PERSON FOR PRACTISING AS ADVOCATE-" PRACTISING AS AN ADVOCATE "-ADVOCATES' LAW, 1894. Defendant by an agreement in writing appointed the Plaintiff as his agent to effect the partition of certain properties in which he was interested, to engage an advocate in the event of litigation, to conduct his business in the Land Registry Office, and to carry out any compromise that might be come to in any matter in dispute, and undertook to pay him £30 for his services. HELD: that this agreement was not illegal, as engaging an unqualified person to practice as an advocate, inasmuch as the services to be rendered were neither among the services enumerated in the definition of "practising as an advocate" in the Advocates' Law, 1894, nor such services as in the nature of things could only be rendered by an advocate, and that consequently a bond given in pursuance of this agreement was enforceable. SEMBLE: The Court will not enforce an acknowledgment of debt though in customary form within Art. 1610 of the Mejelle if it is shewn that it is given in pursuance of an agreement retaining an unqualified person to practice as an advocate. This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nicosia disallowing a claim for £30, made under an agreement, for certain services rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The agreement was as follows:- "I hereby appoint Ahmed Harit Effendi Fedayi Effendi as my "agent for the sum of £30, authorising him to divide with my co-"shareholders the properties which came to me by inheritance from the "late Naim Bey Mehmed Agha Koumbi Hassan; and if any action "is brought before the Court either on my behalf or against me to "appoint an advocate to conduct the case; and to supervise any "business I may have at the Land Registry Office, and if there is any "necessity for me to make a compromise with any of my co-shareholders "to carry it out accordingly." The Defendant gave the Plaintiff a bond for £75, which included an item of £30 as payment for the services above contracted for, but the Court disallowed this item, on the ground that in so far as the bond related to this item it was" not valid for want of consideration "because Plaintiff was not a duly qualified person to perform the "alleged services." The Plaintiff appealed. Severis for the Appellant. Jemal Effendi for the Respondent. The Court allowed the appeal. Judgment: This case seems a very plain one. The District Court seems to have thought that this bond was not, enforceable, or was only partly enforceable because it was given in pursuance of an illegal agreement. This is not what the Court has said. What it has actually said is, that it is" not valid for want of consideration, because Plaintiff "was not a duly qualified person to perform the alleged services." But what it presumably meant was that the Plaintiff illegally agreed to act as the Defendant's advocate, not being qualified to do so, and that consequently the Court would not enforce the bond in so far as it was given to secure a sum due to him under this illegal agreement. If it were shown that under the agreement the amount in question was payable for services which could only be rendered by an advocate, so that it was in effect an agreement entered into in order to break the law, no doubt the judgment of the District Court would have been quite justifiable. In the case of Kalava v. Basiliou and loannides