The court held that it does not make sense for the Court to grant judgment in this application against the 3rd and 4th respondents on the ground that they failed, refused and or neglected to turn up for the hearing. That where a Court bailiff acts unlawfully in the execution of his duties, he is not allowed the immunity. That where in an execution a party to the case assists, connives or colludes with the bailiff, resulting in unlawful execution, then neither the party nor the bailiff can escape liability and the Court then should invoke S.35 (2) of the C.P.A. to avoid a multiplicity of suits so as to settle the matter within the same procedure. That the sale was made before issuance of the order and cannot be set aside.