Abstract

The article elucidates some of the issues surrounding the payment of succumbence fees as a result of enforcements of judgments and their challenges, especially when the enforcements are brought against the public treasury. Initially, he presents how these issues were dealt with in executions of individual judgments against private parties governed by the CPC/1973 and how they are now dealt with in executions of individual judgments against private parties governed by the CPC/2015. It then presents how these issues are dealt with in the enforcement of individual judgments against the public treasury. It then presents how these issues are dealt with in individual enforcement of collective judgments against the public treasury. It concludes that Precedent No. 345 of the STJ is unlawful and inconsistent with other precedents of the STJ itself, with precedents of the STF and with the legal order as a whole. It should therefore be revoked or revised.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call