Try asking the following...
RULING
The plaintiff/appellant/applicant/respondent (herein after called the respondent) filed on repeat application for stay of execution before this court on 3rd August, 2015. This motion was considered by a single judge of the court and granted on terms on 18th November, 2015. The order lapsed because the terms could not be met.
On 10th March, 2016, the respondent applied to the court as duly constituted to review or vary the order of the single judge.
This application was dismissed on 11th April, 2016 on account of the fact that there was no order to review as the order had lapsed in accordance with its own terms. The respondent then filed a fresh application for stay of execution before the court as duly constituted indicating that fresh facts had come to its attention.
The court considered the application and granted same on 19th July, 2016 against both parties.
The 1st defendant/respondent/respondent/applicant (herein after referred to as the applicant), being dissatisfied with the grant of the Injunction against it filed an appeal against same per Notice of Appeal filed on 20th July, 2016. The applicant herein then filed a motion for Stay of Execution of the injunction order of the Court of Appeal on 2nd August, 2016. At the hearing of the motion on 25th October, 2016, by a single judge, the respondent raised a preliminary objection.
The single judge ordered the parties to file written submissions on same which was complied with by both parties including a Reply by the respondent filed on 16th November, 2016 which addressed “point of law and incorrect facts which 1st defendant has raised in its respective written submission”. The respondent’s preliminary objection was on the validity of the Notice of Appeal filed by the applicant to the Supreme Court and its effect on the motion for stay of execution before the court.
The respondent’s contention is that the Notice of Appeal is incompetent as it offends Article 131(2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 4(2) of the Courts Act 1993 (Act459) and hence cannot be a basis for the application for Stay of Execution.
The respondent contends that the applicant required the special leave of the Supreme Court to appeal to the Supreme Court against the interlocutory order of the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the respondent contended that since no leave was obtained, the Notice of Appeal filed was therefore incompetent as it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
That since there was therefore