Privy Council appeal jurisdiction depended on statutory value threshold and a valid certificate; neither existed here.

A right of appeal to the Privy Council arose only if the statutory value threshold was met, and a substantial question of law alone did not create appellate jurisdiction where the subject-matter value was below the prescribed minimum. A special certificate could enable an appeal only if it reflected a conscious judicial exercise of discretion; a bare statement that the requirements were satisfied was ineffective. The certificate here was invalid because the value was plainly below the statutory limit, and the absence of the opposite party did not cure that defect. No appellate jurisdiction existed on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether a right of appeal to the Privy Council arose where the value of the subject matter was below the statutory threshold and the certificate relied on did not validly certify a case fit for appeal otherwise.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the dispute value to reach the prescribed amount before a right of appeal could arise. The existence of a substantial question of law did not by itself create a right of appeal where the value was below the limit; it only operated where the higher decree affirmed the lower decree and the value requirement was otherwise met. A separate certificate could permit an appeal in special cases not meeting the ordinary conditions, but that certificate had to reflect a conscious judicial exercise of the relevant discretion. The certificate in this case merely stated that the requirements of Section 596 were fulfilled, although the value was plainly below the statutory minimum. Non-appearance of the opposite party could not cure the defect or validate an erroneous certificate.

Conclusion: No right of appeal existed on the facts, the certificate was ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal failed.

---