Search court decisions

…The inordinate delay in the filing of the application for review. 3. Absence of any sufficient grounds.…

…for review.…

…In his grounds of opposition to the application for review filed in the superior court on 16th November, 1998, the appellant herein stated that there was no basis upon which an application for review could be granted and…

…Ougo who appeared for the appellant herein in the superior court and also appears for him in this Court is recorded to have responded to the respondent’s application for review by saying: “Application must show error on the…

…for review.…

…To this Mr Ghadialy in supporting the judges ruling stated that the application for review did not contain any material and that the decision of the DO was within the knowledge of the appellants.…

…On 21t February, 1995 faced with all the three applications, counsel for both parties agreed that all the three applications namely: application for eviction filed on 23rd August, 1994, application for review filed on 26th…

…Application for review being of course the main application in that if granted there would be no need for hearing the application for eviction or the application for enlarging of time.…

…In an application for review under Order 44, rule 1, which this one is, the applicant must demonstrate the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge…

…The application for review was heard, as the parties agree, on May 4, 1987, and the ruling given on June 3, 1987. A stay of proceedings was also granted for two months from then.…

…The defendant was further hampered by the lost application for review against this assessment on March 24, 1987.…

…So O 14 r.7 should ordinarily apply i.e. no further application for review should be entertained where one had once been refused. But Mr.…

…Appeals and yet other appeals arose from a point of technicality and applications upon applications for review started.…

…In an application for review under Order 44, rule 1, which this one is, the applicant must demonstrate the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge…

…P. with whom the rest of the court agreed said that the consent judgment could be challenged in the suit itself and as I understand him, by an application for review under the order relating to that procedure.…

…(c) That the Petitioner has failed to give cogent evidence in support of his application for review and or setting aside orders made on 2nd July, 2015.…

…I would refuse to review it even if I were satisfied that, this was a proper application for review.…