Section 218:

218. Imprisonment for debt—The appellant sought to apply for judicial review of the decision of a District Magistrate who had sentenced her to imprisonment on her failure to appear in answer to a summons after unsatisfied judgment (“SAUJ”), as provided under section 30 of the District and Intermediate Courts (Civil Jurisdiction) Act. The crucial question which the Court had to consider was whether the procedure of SAUJ in civil cases, or such part of it, in so far as it permits the court to order the imprisonment of a defendant for a civil debt is contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution. HELD Article 11 of the ICCPR provides that “no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation”. The procedure of SAUJ is compliant with Article 11 of the ICCPR. An examination of a debtor on a SAUJ procedure has for purpose to discover his assets so that the judgment given in favour of a creditor can be executed. Where the debtor, having been duly summoned, fails to attend, the court may order the imprisonment of the debtor unless the debt is paid in the meantime. Where CON – 225 [Issue 1] The Constitution the debtor attends and where the examination shows that the debtor has no assets , a term of imprisonment can be imposed only where it is proven that the debtor has either incurred his debt by fraud or that he has disposed of his property to defraud his creditors. This is far from the situation of Article 11 of the ICCPR where no one is to be imprisoned “merely on the ground of inability to pay his debt”. Toolsy v District Magistrate of Pamplemousses (2002). PART VI – LEGISLATURE