RULING
This matter was placed before me under rule 47 (5) of the Court of Appeal Rules (“the rules”) subsequent to my rejection of an application to certify as urgent the motion dated 1st November, 2010. The motion was taken out under rule 5 (2) (b) of the rules seeking an order for “stay or setting aside the order of stay of execution” granted by the superior court on 9th July, 2010. The applicant says he was aggrieved by that order.
When the matter was first placed before me for certification as urgent on 9th November, 2010, I could not find any notice of appeal in the record which would cloth me with the jurisdiction to deal with it. The same issue was raised by the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Gori at the inter partes hearing but the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Geoffrey Mahinda, readily conceded that he had not filed any. Mr. Mahinda’s contention was that he was perfectly entitled to come to this Court under Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules and prosecute the motion now before the co…