Sayce v Ameer Ruler Dadig Mohammad Abbasi Bahavalpur State
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1952 |
| Date | 20 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 45 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
(Somervell, Jenkins and Morris L.JJ.)
Sovereignty — Conduct of Foreign Affairs — Conclusiveness of Statements of the Executive — Certificate of British Office of Commonwealth Relations.
Federal States — Ruler of State in Pakistan Federation — Sovereignty Limited by Instruments of Accession — Whether Ruler Entitled to Immunity.
British Commonwealth of Nations — Ruler of State in Pakistan Federation — Whether Entitled to Immunity before English Courts — Certificate of Commonwealth Relations Office — Whether Certificate Conclusive — Indian Independence Act, 1947 — Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Ruler of State Member of Pakistan Federation — Sovereignty Limited by Instruments of Accession to Federation — Whether Entitled to Immunity from Jurisdiction of English Courts — Certificate of Commonwealth Relations Office — Whether Certificate Conclusive — Indian Independence Act, 1947 — Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
The Facts.—The plaintiff Sayce issued a writ claiming from the defendant, described as Ameer Ruler of Bahawalpur State, formerly an independent Indian State, damages for alleged breach of contract. The writ was served on the defendant, who entered a conditional appearance to it and took out a summons asking that the writ be set aside. The summons was heard on October 13,1950, by Master Grundy, who ordered that the service of the writ be set aside on the ground that the defendant was entitled to immunity as the ruler of a sovereign State.
The plaintiff appealed to McNair J. in Chambers, who adjourned the summons into open Court. There was before the Court a letter dated September 4, 1951, from the Commonwealth Relations Office which stated that until August 15, 1947, his Highness the Ameer of Bahawalpur was recognized by His Majesty as the ruler of that State, which was under the suzerainty of His Majesty; but that the position of the State of Bahawalpur was altered by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the Government of India Act, 1935, as modified by the provisions of the Act of 1947. The letter outlined the constitutional position of the Ameer and of his State as a result of an instrument of accession to Pakistan dated October 3, 1947, and certain further instruments (one dated April 29, 1951) which the Ameer had executed in pursuance of section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (as modified), which created a Federation to consist of the territories of the Dominion of Pakistan and such Indian States as might accede to the Federation under section 6. The final paragraph of the letter stated:
“In these circumstances I am to say that the State of Bahawalpur is not a part of His Majesty's Dominions, and that the Ameer, within the limitations imposed upon him by the constitutional arrangements set out above, is sovereign ruler of the State.”
McNair J. affirmed the finding of the Master. In his view, the statement of the Commonwealth Relations Office precluded him from considering the difficult question of the status of component parts of the Federation, or how far the recognition accorded in the present case was consistent with the recognition accorded to Pakistan as reported in Kahan v. Pakistan FederationELR ([1951] 2 K.B. 1003). His Lordship relied on the decision of the House of Lords in Duff Development Co., Ltd. v. Government of KelantanELR ([1924] A.C. 797).
The plaintiff appealed.
Held: That the appeal must be dismissed and the order setting the writ aside be allowed to stand. The question whether a ruler of a State was entitled to immunity was one for determination by His Majesty's Government and not by the Courts. The Commonwealth Relations Office was the appropriate governmental department in this case, and the Court was bound to treat the letter from that Department as decisive.
Somervell L.J. stated the facts and continued: “Before I deal with the facts I propose to read one or two passages, on which the learned Judge relied in his judgment, from the decision of the House of Lords in Duff Development Co., Ltd. v. Government of KelantanELR ([1924] A.C. 797, 808, 815), which was, of course, the well-known case which raised a question with regard to the immunity of the State of Kelantan. Lord Cave said: ‘No doubt the engagements entered into by a State may be of such a character as to limit and qualify, or even to destroy, the attributes of sovereignty and independence: Wheaton, 5th ed., 50; Halleck, 4th ed., 73 and the precise point at which sovereignty disappears and dependence begins may sometimes be difficult to determine. But where such a question arises it is desirable that it should be determined, not by Courts, which must decide on legal principles only, but by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Alamieyeseigha) v Crown Prosecution Service
...claimant's counsel also sought to seek derive assistance on this point from ( Sayce v Ameer Ruler Sadig Mohommed Abbasi Bahawalpur State [1952] 2 QB 390) in which the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that the defendant was the ruler of Bahawalpur State which had been an independent state p......
-
Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke
...1924 A.C. 797,[3] Viscount Cave, at pp. 808–9, said: See, also, Sayce v. Ameer Ruler Sadig Mohammad Abbasi Bahawalpur StateELR, (1952) 2 Q.B. 390.[1] That such a certificate in regard to the status of a foreign country is binding not only on British courts but also on all courts of those co......
-
R (HRH Sultan of Pahang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of Kelantan [1924] A.C. 797, Sultan of Johore v Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahar [1952] 2 AC 318 (PC) and Sayce v Ameer Ruler of Bahawalpur [1952] 2 Q.B. 390. On the basis of these authorities he submitted that even though Pahang has become a part of the federal state of Malaysia, it retains a ......
-
Sultan of Pahang v Home Secretary [England, Court of Appeal]
...AC 797, Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Aris BendaharELR[1952] 2 AC 318 (PC) and Sayce v. Ameer Ruler of BahawalpurELR[1952] 2 QB 390. On the basis of these authorities he submitted that even though Pahang has become a part of the federal state of Malaysia, it retains a sufficient degree......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...2.49 This position of Lord Atkin”s was reiterated in subsequent cases like Sayce v Ameer Ruler Sadig Mohammad Abbasi Bahawalpur State[1952] 2 QB 390. 2.50 In short, the Court of Appeal in CAA v SIA concluded that the question of whether an entity was a State, so as to enjoy sovereign immuni......