The appellant obtained a judgement for payment of $164 452.00 against one Nizamudein Shahadat. In pursuance of execution, the Messenger of Court attacheda half share in a property called Lot 5 of stands 225-236 of Park Town Extension of Subdivision A of Waterfalls which is co-owned by the respondent and one Neejam Shahadat. The respondent brought up a claim claiming that the immovable property was jointly owned by herself and the said Neejam Shahadat who were not the judgement debtors therefore, the property was not liable for execution, resulting in these interpleader proceedings. More
The appellant was convicted of contravening s 157 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to pay a fine of US$400 in default of payment to undergo four months’ imprisonment. The court further ordered that the appellant be held by prison authorities and be handed over to the Immigration Department for immediate deportation soon after payment of the fine or serving the term of imprisonment. More
This case has brought to the fore the question “what constitutes a valid court order” in situations where a court order incorporates a deed of settlement. In casu the applicant seeks the setting aside of a consent order granted by this court on the 15th March 2017 following a deed of settlement entered into by the parties on the 6th March 2017. More
This is an opposed summary judgment application.
The law on the relief of summary judgment is settled.
In sum, it is to enable a plaintiff with a clear case to obtain quick judgment against a defendant who has no real defence against the claim.
The plaintiff’s claim must be unanswerable both on the facts and the law.
To successfully repel such an application, the defendant must establish that he has a good prima facie defence.
Defendant must show that there is a mere possibility of his success at the trial, that he has a plausible case or that there is... More
In this application the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. The respondents be and are hereby held to be in contempt of this
Honourable Court Order granted on 19 May 2009.
2. The respondents be and are hereby incarcerated for a period of ninety (90) days each.
3. Costs of this application shall be paid by the respondents”. More
