RULING:
1. I have considered the Chamber Summons application dated 17.08.23 together with the affidavit in support sworn on even date and the replying affidavit in opposition to the same sworn on 20.11.23 and the submissions of counsel, and the relevant law.
2. The appellant is seeking final reliefs at an interlocutory stage, which appear identical to and closely relates to grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. Looking at the application, the applicant has gone as far as praying at prayer No. 9 that the appeal be allowed. Such reliefs cannot be granted at an interlocutory stage and the appellant must endure appellate process.
3. Further, the respondent submitted that there is no substantive suit before this court, which is a pre -requisite for the grant of injunctive orders sought, to which I agree that a substantive suit is indeed pre-requisite for grant of any injunctive orders.
4. Moreover, I do not know of a such process by which the appellant may combine written submissions relating to an application with submissions in relation to its substantive appeal.
5. While I am sympathetic to the appellants position, being in poor medical health, I find that such an application is an abuse of court process. The Civil Procedure Rules provide for both review and appeal, where appropriate. There is no known procedure available to an appellant to challenge the decision of the lower court by way of a Chamber Summons application in order to bypass the appellate process.
6. Based on the reasons above, I find that the application is incompetently before me and the same is struck out with costs.