ALEXANDER ANANE VS EDWARD SIAW & ORS

MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONCounsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant Your Ladyship, we have before you an application for Interlocutory Injunction filed on 1/11/2022 against the Defendants/Respondent herein.

I move in terms of the motion paper and the supporting affidavit and all the annexures.

We rely on all the depositions contained in the Affidavit in Support and pray that the application is granted.

At this stage the Defendant has auctioned the property even though execution has not been completed.

The Defendants want to eject the occupants of the property.

Your Ladyship, we refer to Exhibit PA 9. We have pleaded fraud and particularized same as the basis for the judgment obtained in the other Court.

The 1st Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was not in the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the other case and they have not denied this material allegation in the Affidavit in Support of this application.

Counsel for the 1st Defendant Your Ladyship, it is important to bring to the Court’s attention that execution has been completed and the 4th Defendant has taken possession of the property, the same property they are seeking Your Ladyship’s order to restrain the Defendants from taking possession.

We will say that their application has been taken over by events and that the Court usually does not make orders which are otiose and the Plaintiff/Applicant is aware of that.

Counsel for the Plaintiff Your Ladyship, the matters alluded to by 1st Defendant Counsel have not been deposedto and we object to same going into the record.

Counsel for the 1st Defendant Your Ladyship, this case was pending at Court two (2), a Court of coordinate jurisdiction.

Instead of proceeding on the matter in the execution, the Applicant chose to come to this Court of coordinate jurisdiction.

They came to issue a new Writ and we have attached all the proceedings that transpired in the other Court.

Your Ladyship, what the Applicant is seeking to do is to instigate this Honourable Court to detract from an Order from a Court of coordinate jurisdiction.

That Court has made orders for the Defendants to take possession of that property, and this Court cannot make contrary orders.

Finally, the gravamen of the Applicant’s Writ is based on fraud which we disagree with.

They have indicated the particulars of fraud in the writ.

The processes through which notice of the sale came to the Applicant’s attention is the same process the Defendants used t