Counsel for the applicant submitted that Notice of Appeal had been served on another Counsel who had no instructions from the applicant, thus, the Notice of Appeal was incompetent and could not be left to stand. He further contended that the interim order was tainted with illegalities and bad faith.
Counsel for the respondent opposed the application and contended that service was effective as it was made on a duly instructed counsel. He further submitted that the matter was res judicata, having been decided by the Supreme Court.
From the evidence that was adduced, it was found that the Notice of Appeal had not been served on the persons directly affected by the appeal, and it was thereby struck out. Further, it was found that the applicant failed to prove that the appeal had been brought outside time. With regard to the interim order, it was found to have been entered invalidly. Further, the court found that the respondent was liable for abuse of court of order for executing an order that had elapsed.
In the result, the application was granted with prayers sought.