3-
102
Section 3 gives the Court wider power to stay legal pro-
Cases may arise in
ceedings brought against liquidators.
which justice could not be done if the case were heard during
the war, owing, for instance, to the impossibility of obtain-
ing evidence, and it seems desirable that the decision on such
a point should rest with a judicial tribunal and not with the
executive.
Some doubtful cases have already arisen. It is
possible that the Court already has inherent jurisdiction in
the matter but it seemed advisable to give it express jurisdic-
tion.
The same remarks apply to section 4, which amends the sec-
tion of Ordinance No. 11 of 1915 which deals with the staying
of actions brought against alien enemies. This section also
extends that section to all legal proceedings including arbitra-
tions.
Sub-section (1) of section 5 is intended to remove possible
doubts, which might be based on the wording of sub-section (1)
of section 5 of Ordinance No. 28 of 1914, as to the extent of
the power to appoint a liquidator. Liquidators have been ap-
pointed in the case of firms which had neutral and even British
In partners, e.g. Carlowitz & Co. and Arnhold Karberg & Co.
other cases it is not known if some of the enemy subject partners
have ever been in the Colony. In a few cases where the con-
signment terms could not be complied with liquidators have been appointed to sell consignment goods belonging to enemies and
The reference to held by firms which were being wound up. alien enemy executors and administrators is due to the fact that the legal estate in certain leasehold property belonging to one