In a recent appellate case in which our law office acted for the successful party, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on, inter alia, the ground that "Courts do not act in vain".
In the appeal case, under consideration, the Appellant – (an intervener) – filed an appeal against a decision of a first Instant Court, dismissing the Appellant's application to set aside chabra freezing orders and a receivership order, but in the meantime, the ex parte freezing order and the receivership had become absolute – (due to the non-appearance of the Respondent) – and the assets under receivership, had been sold by the receiver, pursuant to an order of the 1st Instance Court and the proceeds of sale, were deposited with Court.
The Appellate Court decided that, even if the appeal were successful, the cancellation of the chabra injunction and receivership, would not have any practical effect, in relation to the frozen assets, which were already sold, and that furthermore such cancellation would have been in conflict, with the 1st Instant Court decision, making such freezing order and receivership, absolute.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
