This appeal arose out of attachment proceedings (saisie-arrêt Application) initiated by Respondent (Applicant in the Saisie Arret Application).
In the saisie-arrêt Application, a key procedural irregularity was raised that no exploit had been served on either the garnishee(s) or the debtor, in contravention of Article 559 of the Code de Procédure Civile.
The objection regarding lack of service was overruled by the Judge in Chambers.
Appellant (Respondent in the saisie-arrêt Application) then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that:
- (a) service by exploit is a mandatory requirement under Article 559.
- (b) The Judge’s Leave Order authorizing the saisie-arrêt did not qualify as an exploit and could not substitute proper service, contrary to what was argued by the opposite party.
- (c) In the absence of valid service, the attachment proceedings were deemed null and void.
This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements governing saisie-arrêt applications. It establishes that:
This case stands as a landmark authority on the procedural integrity required in interim relief applications and execution proceedings.