RULING ON URGENCY
On 5th April, 2002 I declined to certify this application as urgent as there was a similar parallel application for stay of execution and stay of proceedings in the superior court. I stated then that unforeseen results may occur if two courts give different decisions. My refusal to certify this application led the applicant to seek certification of urgency under rule 47(5) of the Rules of this Court. I heard all parties to this application on 26th April, 2002 as a result of request by Messrs Archer and Wilcock Advocates by a letter dated 22nd April, 2002 by which letter the said firm of advocates sought the inter-parte hearing.
Miss Janmohamed who appeared for the applicant informed me that the application in the superior court, for stay of execution was not heard as the learned Judge felt that the applicant had not complied with orders to return or to give the keys of the maisonettes, which are the subject-matter of the suit, to the first two respondents despite a cou…