The application was properly brought under Rule 4 together with Rule 11 as there was no formal execution filed by the respondent. The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause by showing that the sale of the property would render the intended appeal nugatory. The applicant's readiness to furnish a commitment bond as security satisfies the requirement for granting a stop order to preserve the subject matter pending appeal.
Civil procedurefatma mohamedadministratrix of the estate of the late mohamed khamis abdallah vs abdullatif mohamed hamis administrator of the estate of the late mohamed khamis abdall
The applicant failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate imminent danger or risk of disposal of the estate property. The title deed remains in the names of the deceased and the applicant, and there is no immediate threat of the property being wasted or disposed of. Therefore, the application for an interim order to maintain the status quo is without merit and is dismissed.
The applicant demonstrated the existence of a serious triable issue regarding ownership and the right to be heard before deprivation of property. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the applicant, as rectification of the title could jeopardize its position without a hearing. The court held that the right to be heard and maintenance of the status quo pending the expiration of the statutory notice outweighed arguments about monetary compensation or ongoing investigations. The conditions for a Mareva injunction were met.
Temporary injunction cannot be granted against the Government under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; applicants failed to meet conditions for injunction; application overtaken by events as applicants were already evicted.
The High Court granted an interim status quo order restraining the respondents from impounding or selling the applicant’s trucks and trailers pending the application.
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory land application for maintenance of status quo, finding the request would prematurely decide ownership issues pending appeal.
The applicants prayed for maintenance of status quo, but their prayer was for the respondents to continue using the property as before the proceedings, not for restoration to the applicants. Granting the application as sought would amount to a premature determination of ownership, which is reserved for the main appeal. The application is therefore dismissed for want of merit.