R U L I N G
When this Notice of Motion came before me for hearing seeking for Orders in terms of Order 53, both Counsel agreed that they would canvas their application by way of written submissions. Both sides did place their submissions on record. I have carefully considered the written submissions.
Two problems have arisen and which make me believe that may be this application should have been argued before the Court.The 1st problem is the manner in which Counsel for the applicant has decided to make reference to the parties. It takes too much of an effort to ascertain which party he is referring to and in which of the numerous previous proceedings and cSaesceosn.dly, it is clear from the record that the applicant was not accorded an opportunity to address the Court in reply to the respondent's submission. In the result, an important submission was left unanswered to. In that:
"Your Lordship, the 2nd respondent herein has been issued with the Title Deed which actually defeats the ap…