1. The Originating Motion dated 22nd July 2025 was filed on the same day.
2. On 29th July 2025, a proposed Interested Party filed an application seeking to be joined to the proceedings.
3. This required the Court’s intervention and directions before the substantive motion could proceed.
4. On 25th September 2025, another proposed Interested Party filed an application also seeking to be joined in the proceedings.
5. This again required the Court’s intervention and directions, thereby affecting the ninety‑day calculation.
6. On 26 January 2026, when the matter was scheduled for Ruling, the Respondents wrote to the Court asserting that the matter was moot.
7. The Court was duty‑bound to issue directions and consider the rival contentions before proceeding to judgment.
8. On 9 March 2026, the Respondents filed a Preliminary Objection. This further interrupted the timeline.
9. Each of these steps required the Court to issue directions, hear parties, and determine the interlocutory applications.
10. The delay in determination the substantive application was occasioned by numerous applications and directions, as filed by both the Respondents and the proposed Interested Party, which the Court was duty‑bound to address.
11. Section 8 of the Fair Administrative Act (FAA Act) provides that an application for the review of an administrative action or an appeal under this Act shall be determined within ninety days of filing the application. The 90 days as stipulated in FAA Act lapsed on 21st October 2025.
12. Any judgment issued after the 90 days will be issued devoid of jurisdiction.
Order;
The court lacks jurisdiction and the court hereby downs its tools.
2. On 29th July 2025, a proposed Interested Party filed an application seeking to be joined to the proceedings.
3. This required the Court’s intervention and directions before the substantive motion could proceed.
4. On 25th September 2025, another proposed Interested Party filed an application also seeking to be joined in the proceedings.
5. This again required the Court’s intervention and directions, thereby affecting the ninety‑day calculation.
6. On 26 January 2026, when the matter was scheduled for Ruling, the Respondents wrote to the Court asserting that the matter was moot.
7. The Court was duty‑bound to issue directions and consider the rival contentions before proceeding to judgment.
8. On 9 March 2026, the Respondents filed a Preliminary Objection. This further interrupted the timeline.
9. Each of these steps required the Court to issue directions, hear parties, and determine the interlocutory applications.
10. The delay in determination the substantive application was occasioned by numerous applications and directions, as filed by both the Respondents and the proposed Interested Party, which the Court was duty‑bound to address.
11. Section 8 of the Fair Administrative Act (FAA Act) provides that an application for the review of an administrative action or an appeal under this Act shall be determined within ninety days of filing the application. The 90 days as stipulated in FAA Act lapsed on 21st October 2025.
12. Any judgment issued after the 90 days will be issued devoid of jurisdiction.
Order;
The court lacks jurisdiction and the court hereby downs its tools.