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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
