This is an urgent Chamber application in which the
applicants seek the relief set out in the draft order. The draft
order reads as follows:“1. The Registrar is hereby directed to set down case no.
SC 293/11 for an urgent hearing on the next available date.2. The applicants shall file heads ...
This is an urgent Chamber application in which the
applicants seek the relief set out in the draft order. The draft
order reads as follows:
“1. The Registrar is hereby directed to set down case no.
SC 293/11 for an urgent hearing on the next available date.
2. The applicants shall file heads of argument within
five days of being called upon to do so by the Registrar.
3. The first, second and third respondents shall
thereafter file their Heads of Argument within five days of receiving the
applicants' Heads of Argument.
4. Pending the determination of the appeal under case
no. SC 293/11, the fifth respondent be and is hereby interdicted from
transferring the Pelhams Limited, amounting to 376,976,840, shares from the
second, third and fourth applicants to the second respondent.
5. Costs shall be costs in the cause unless the
application is opposed, in which case the party opposing shall meet the costs
of this application.”
In essence, the applicants were seeking –
(a) The setting down of the appeal in case no. SC 293/11 on
an urgent basis;
(b) An interdict stopping the transference of the shares in
Pelhams Limited to the second respondent pending the hearing of the appeal in
case no. SC293/11.
The application was opposed.
After submissions by counsel, I dismissed the application
as I was satisfied that it was devoid of any merit. My reasoning for so
concluding was made very clear during my interaction with counsel
during their submissions. I accordingly assumed that written reasons for
judgment were superfluous in this matter, as the parties were aware of my
reasoning process.
The appeal in case no. SC 293/11 has since, in due course,
been heard. The appeal was dismissed. See judgment no. SC12-13.
In a letter to the Registrar of
the Supreme Court dated 29 January 2014, the respondents' legal practitioners,
Messrs Atherstone & Cook, have requested my reasons for judgment in this application. I
can only surmise that the respondents probably
want the reasons for judgment for guidance as they were the successful parties in the application.
Be that as it may, it is now
trite that a litigant is entitled to reasons for judgment.
I have already stated that I dismissed the application
without giving written reasons for judgment.
The following are they.
