1. I have considered the application dated 3rd June 2025 together with the affidavit sworn in support of the same seeking to arrest the ruling of this court scheduled for today.
2. The Application seeks to arrest the ruling of this court arising out of oral examination of various judgment debtors on the basis that there exists a liquidation petition in relation to the Company.
3. The Application is opposed by way of a replying affidavit sworn on 1st July 2025.
4. In opposition to the Application, the respondent submitted that the applicant has never appointed an advocate in this matter, and it is not clear if the advocate present today is properly on record. Counsel submitted that the application ought to be struck out on this basis alone.
5. Further, he contended that the only order sought in the Application seeks to stay the ruling in this matter; there is no clear understanding as to what the main prayer or objective of the Application is beyond the same.
6. Counsel submitted that the Application ought to have been filed in the insolvency court and not the present court if the applicant seeks a stay of proceedings. This is the wrong court in respect of the present Application.
7. Counsel pointed out that the applicant has failed to appear on numerous occasions and has shown continuous delay. The present Application was filed at the point the ruling was due for delivery.
8. I have considered the submissions above. Arrest of judgment refers to a situation where the court is requested to withhold delivery of a judgment or ruling after hearing but before pronouncement, on grounds that there exists a fundamental defect in the proceedings or the decision-making process that would render the judgment irregular or illegal.
9. It is a discretionary remedy. It is an invitation to the court to recall its jurisdictional footing and refrain from rendering a judgment that would be contrary to law or justice.
10. The power to do so is found at Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which preserves the court’s inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
11. However, a Court ought to exercise such discretion in very limited instances, such as when serious legal irregularities may occur, and or where proceeding to deliver the decision would compromise the administration of justice.
12. In the present matter the only basis relied on by the applicant is that the company is the subject of liquidation proceedings. The applicant has not shown that an order for moratorium has been issued by a court in relation to legal proceedings, or provided any compelling reason as stated above that in my view is satisfactory to warrant the exercise of discretion in support of the remedy sought.
13. Based on the reasons set out above and based on the reasons provided by counsel for the respondent, I find and hold that the Application is without merit. The same is dismissed with cost.
2. The Application seeks to arrest the ruling of this court arising out of oral examination of various judgment debtors on the basis that there exists a liquidation petition in relation to the Company.
3. The Application is opposed by way of a replying affidavit sworn on 1st July 2025.
4. In opposition to the Application, the respondent submitted that the applicant has never appointed an advocate in this matter, and it is not clear if the advocate present today is properly on record. Counsel submitted that the application ought to be struck out on this basis alone.
5. Further, he contended that the only order sought in the Application seeks to stay the ruling in this matter; there is no clear understanding as to what the main prayer or objective of the Application is beyond the same.
6. Counsel submitted that the Application ought to have been filed in the insolvency court and not the present court if the applicant seeks a stay of proceedings. This is the wrong court in respect of the present Application.
7. Counsel pointed out that the applicant has failed to appear on numerous occasions and has shown continuous delay. The present Application was filed at the point the ruling was due for delivery.
8. I have considered the submissions above. Arrest of judgment refers to a situation where the court is requested to withhold delivery of a judgment or ruling after hearing but before pronouncement, on grounds that there exists a fundamental defect in the proceedings or the decision-making process that would render the judgment irregular or illegal.
9. It is a discretionary remedy. It is an invitation to the court to recall its jurisdictional footing and refrain from rendering a judgment that would be contrary to law or justice.
10. The power to do so is found at Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which preserves the court’s inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
11. However, a Court ought to exercise such discretion in very limited instances, such as when serious legal irregularities may occur, and or where proceeding to deliver the decision would compromise the administration of justice.
12. In the present matter the only basis relied on by the applicant is that the company is the subject of liquidation proceedings. The applicant has not shown that an order for moratorium has been issued by a court in relation to legal proceedings, or provided any compelling reason as stated above that in my view is satisfactory to warrant the exercise of discretion in support of the remedy sought.
13. Based on the reasons set out above and based on the reasons provided by counsel for the respondent, I find and hold that the Application is without merit. The same is dismissed with cost.