Supreme Court
Action No. 169 of 1978
19th December, 1978
Sir Denis Malone, CJ.

Mr. Brown for the Attorney General
Mr. Hubert Arthurs in person
Mr. Elrington for Ismay Arnold
Mr. Denys Barrow for the John Robateau.

Practice - Relief by way of interpleader - Order 63 v. 1(a) of the Supreme Court Rules - Application misconceived - Application - Dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

The Affidavit of the Applicant in support of the application deposes that the Action is brought:

"to settle the entitlement of the claimants to money - compensation for lot No. 301 Albert Street, Belize City, which was compulsory acquired by the Government of Belize on the 16th March, 1977."

It further deposes that the three claimants all claim the said property and that because of their adverse claims, the Applicant who has no interest in the subject matter in dispute, by which is meant the compensation, and who has not colluded with any of the claimants, expects to be sued by two or more of them. So in brief the applicant is seeking relief by way of interpleader under Order 63 r. 1 (a) of the Supreme Court Rules. That rule is as follows:

"1. Relief by way of interpleader may be granted -
(a) where the person seeking relief (in this Order called the applicant) is under liability for any debt, money, goods or chattels, for in respect of which he is, or expects to be, sued by two or more parties (in this Order called the claimants making adverse claims thereto;"

A debt due not yet payable may come within the terms of the order but unliquidated damages is not a "debt" for the purposes of the order. As Fry L.J. said in Ingham v. Walker (1887) 3 T.L.R. 448 at p. 449:

"Order LVII, which governed interpleader proceedings, dealt with liability in one person to pay a specific sum of money, while at the same time two other persons were making claims in respect of that sum. The claims must be to the money as such. A claim on one side to a specific sum of money and a claim on one side to a specific sum of money and a claim on other for unliquidated damages could not be the subject of interpleader proceedings."

In this instance the Applicant's Affidavit does not disclose the true position, as in fact there has not yet been an assessment of the compensation payable. When the compensation for the land compulsorily acquired by Government is assessed, there will then be a debt of a specific sum. Until that is done, there is no debt. Consequently, the application is misconceived and I have no jurisdiction to make the order for which application has been made.

The application is dismissed and I order that the costs of the application be paid by the Applicant.

-----------OO----------