S. A. TURQUI & BROS v. DAHABIEH

The appellate court, per Taylor J.S.C., addressed an appeal by S.A. Turqui and Bros against the High Court’s setting aside of an ex parte default judgment and recovery of possession obtained in suit No. 104/75 against “Technical Trading Co.” The underlying tenancy involved Nasib Dahabieh, an alien trader operating as a sole proprietor, who had rented the store without a written lease and later travelled to Lebanon while Act 334 constrained trading. During his absence, the landlords sued the business name, obtained substituted service, and secured judgment and a writ of possession that bailiffs executed, removing goods. The appellate court held that Order 48A, r. 11 allows suing a person under a business name but requires service on the human proprietor; substituted service is impermissible when personal service is impossible due to absence abroad; and Act 220’s section 17(1)(h) preconditions were not met. Finding fraud and procedural breaches, the court affirmed setting aside the judgment, declared the writ of possession void, struck out Technical Trading Co. as a plaintiff, and dismissed the appeal with costs, maintaining exemplary damages awarded below.