The following joint judgment was delivered :-
KINGDON, c.]., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.]., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, c.]., SIERRA LEONE.
In this action judgment was given in the Divisional Court for the Plaintiff-Respondent for £1,644 10s. and costs to be taxed. The costs were taxed at £73 18s. 6d. On appeal to this Court, inter alia, the judgment was varied by judgment being entered for the Plaintiff-Respondent against the Defendants-Appellants jointly and severally for £250 only and the order as to costs was set aside. The usual formal certificate was issued directing the Court below to carry out the judgment of this Court.
In pursuance of that certificate application was made to the Court below for an order that the Plaintiff-Respondent should repay to the Defendants-Appellants the sum of £1,394 10s. together, with interest thereon from the 27th July 1939 to the date of payment at the rate of 4 per cent per annum and the sum of £73 18s. 6d" That application was refused on the ground that the certificate did not authorise the Court below to enforce the payment.
The Defendants-Appellants have not appealed against that refusal, but have come to this Court with the present application for an order consequential upon and For supplemental to the judgment of this Court that the Plaintiff-Respondent do repa to the Defendants-Appellants the difference between £1,644 10s., and £250, namely, £1,:>'94 10s. together with interest thereon from the 27th July 1939 to the date of payment at the rate of -1 per cent per annum and also the costs of £73 18s. 6d.
The Plaintiff-Respondent has questioned the power of the Court to make the order prayed. But it appears to us that w undoubtedly have the power.
The matter seems, on this point, to be on all fours with the: case of Evans v. J\iI(Jin Colliery Co. Ltd. 31 T.L.R. 127. In that case, as in this, the successful Defendants-Appellants omitted t ask the Appeal Court at the time of judgment for an order that al sum of money which had been paid by them to the PlaintiffJ Respondent under the judgment of the Court below should b repaid to them, and a subsequent application by the Defendants.! Appellants that the order might be added to by providing that the sum paid should be returned was granted. We think that: there is nothing in the argument of Counsel for the Plaintiff·1 Respondent that, because this Court has already issued a certificate directing the Court below "to carry out", this Court cannot make any additional
