Results.
10 judgments found.
|
|
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Judgment on admission upheld where statements of account and emails constituted a clear, unequivocal admission of debt.
-
Civil procedure — Judgment on admission — Order 21/6 HCR & Order 27/3 RSC — Clear, unequivocal admissions in statements of account and correspondence — Court may consider affidavits and contemporaneous emails and enter judgment without trial.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Interlocutory injunction upheld where alleged encroachment on road reserve raised serious triable issue and risked irreparable loss of access.
-
Interlocutory injunctions — three‑limb test (serious question to be tried; irreparable injury; balance of convenience) — encroachment on road reserve — loss of access — appellate restraint in review of discretionary interlocutory orders.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Writs of possession require an extant possession order; later orders and payments can supersede earlier entitlements.
-
Civil procedure — enforcement of judgments — writ of possession requires an existing order granting possession; subsequent orders and payments can supersede earlier rights; court orders remain binding until varied or set aside.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Filing proceedings during Michaelmas vacation without court leave deprives the court of jurisdiction; respondent awarded costs.
-
Civil procedure — Vacation sittings — Filing pleadings during Michaelmas vacation — Order 49/3(1) HCR and Order 2/4 HCR require mandatory leave or direction — Filing without leave deprives court of jurisdiction; irregularity versus nullity; costs follow the event.
|
31 October 2025 |
|
Appeal succeeds: reduced excessive security, set aside premature attachment; security must relate to claim value.
-
Civil procedure
-
— Interim attachment — Requirement that plaintiff first call upon defendant to provide security — Order 26 High Court Rules
-
— Security — Quantum of sufficient security should be related to the value of the claim, not the defendant's property
-
— Security for costs — Distinction between sufficient security under Order 26 and security for costs under Order 40
|
30 October 2025 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction over mining-rights dispute governed by statutory appeals to the Mining Appeals Tribunal.
-
Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Statutory appeals under Mines and Minerals Development Act (ss 96, 97, 100) oust direct High Court jurisdiction for mining-rights disputes
-
Civil/tort law — Surface rights v mining rights — Distinction determines whether a claim is tortious (High Court) or falls within the Tribunal's remit
-
Constitutional/procedure — Unconstituted tribunal — Absence of tribunal does not permit wrong mode of commencement in High Court; statutory process must be followed
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Appellants' pension claims dismissed as res judicata and time‑barred where earlier Supreme Court had determined same reliefs.
-
Pension law — Scheme disputes — Res judicata — Prior Supreme Court determination covering same reliefs
-
Civil procedure — Res judicata — Privity of interest — Parties adequately represented previously
-
Limitation — Trust claims — Section 19 Limitation Act — Fraud must be pleaded and particularised to avoid limitation
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Registrar lacked jurisdiction to assess liquidated gratuity and leave but must assess unliquidated damages under the Consent Judgment.
-
Civil procedure — Consent judgment
-
— Assessment of damages by Registrar — Jurisdiction under High Court Rules (Order XXVII r6)
-
— Liquidated claims versus unliquidated claims — Enforcement/administrative verification vs judicial assessment
-
Civil procedure — Registrar's discretion — Referral to Judge under Order XXX r9 is discretionary, not mandatory
|
30 October 2025 |
|
Refusal to extend time upheld due to appellant’s prolonged dilatory conduct; affidavit defect held non‑material.
-
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Judicial discretion to enlarge time — Repeated dilatory conduct — Affidavit irregularity non‑material and curable — Costs for delay and vexatious applications.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Court held appellant's electricity‑supply claim was a preferential liquidation expense and its voting exclusion unlawful.
-
Companies law — scheme of arrangement; preferential liquidation expenses; classification of creditors by legal rights; related‑party disclosure; verification of proofs of debt; voting rights and estoppel; court’s supervisory role in sanctioning schemes.
|
9 October 2025 |