1. I have considered the application dated 24 June 2024 seeking a stay of execution.
2. I note from the outset that the applicant has not annexed the orders that it seeks to stay, or the judgment pursuant to which the orders arise out of.
3. Moreover, the respondent has on a number of previous occasions stated that the said orders arise out of a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, namely orders issued by Magare, J.
4. This court had previously directed that it would not sit on appeal of the orders of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, and issued directions to the applicant to ascertain if the position as stated by the respondent is accurate, and if so, to file its matter in the court of appeal. The said directions were issued on 24th February 2025.
5. The court further directed that the advocate would bear personal costs in the event he pursued the present application, and it thereafter turned out, that the orders he sought to stay do indeed arise from a court of concurrent jurisdiction, because this court had already informed him that the appropriate avenue is the court of appeal, and not the present court. The applicant was given sufficient time to make his inquiries.
6. The matter was rescheduled for hearing on 3rd July 2025. On the said date, the court once again requested the same information from the advocate for the applicant. Counsel informed this court that he intended to proceed, and reiterated that the present avenue was the appropriate forum.
7. Having considered the application. I find that the same is fatally defective. The applicant has not exhibited to the supporting affidavit the orders that it seeks to stay. The court is unable to identify the subject orders and the applicant's failure to do so renders the application fatally defective.
8. Moreover, the judgment from which the orders ostensibly arise from, was during the course of the hearing admitted as being the judgment of Magare, J. and, it would appear that the orders were also issued by Magare, J. However, the same were not annexed.
9. Based on the reasons set out above, I find that the Application is fatally defective and the is dismissed with costs.
10. Costs are awarded against the advocate personally in line with my directions issued on 24 Feb 2025.
11. The file is marked as closed.
2. I note from the outset that the applicant has not annexed the orders that it seeks to stay, or the judgment pursuant to which the orders arise out of.
3. Moreover, the respondent has on a number of previous occasions stated that the said orders arise out of a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, namely orders issued by Magare, J.
4. This court had previously directed that it would not sit on appeal of the orders of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, and issued directions to the applicant to ascertain if the position as stated by the respondent is accurate, and if so, to file its matter in the court of appeal. The said directions were issued on 24th February 2025.
5. The court further directed that the advocate would bear personal costs in the event he pursued the present application, and it thereafter turned out, that the orders he sought to stay do indeed arise from a court of concurrent jurisdiction, because this court had already informed him that the appropriate avenue is the court of appeal, and not the present court. The applicant was given sufficient time to make his inquiries.
6. The matter was rescheduled for hearing on 3rd July 2025. On the said date, the court once again requested the same information from the advocate for the applicant. Counsel informed this court that he intended to proceed, and reiterated that the present avenue was the appropriate forum.
7. Having considered the application. I find that the same is fatally defective. The applicant has not exhibited to the supporting affidavit the orders that it seeks to stay. The court is unable to identify the subject orders and the applicant's failure to do so renders the application fatally defective.
8. Moreover, the judgment from which the orders ostensibly arise from, was during the course of the hearing admitted as being the judgment of Magare, J. and, it would appear that the orders were also issued by Magare, J. However, the same were not annexed.
9. Based on the reasons set out above, I find that the Application is fatally defective and the is dismissed with costs.
10. Costs are awarded against the advocate personally in line with my directions issued on 24 Feb 2025.
11. The file is marked as closed.