Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] The Applicants seek a declaratory that the orders granted by this Court on 30 July 2019 are final despite their appellation as interim. Once so confirmed, they should be automatically suspended as contemplated in Section 18(1) of the Superior Court Act No. 10 of 2013 (“the Act”). In the alternative and only in the event that the declaratory is refused, they seek an order staying the operation and execution of the orders as envisaged in Section 18(2) as read with (3) of the Act. The Applicants do so in the belief that they will be irreparably harmed if the orders are not suspended whereas the First Respondent will not. The existence of exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm on the part of the Applicants and absence thereof on the First Respondent mentioned in Section 18 of the Act should be enough to vindicate the suspension.

[2] Before proceeding with the judgment, I deem it necessary to mention that while the Applicants believe that the matter is urgent, the Respondents did not necessarily concede that it was but refrained from challenging it because the outcome might mean the early return of the First Respondent to his position as a Chief Executive Officer of the First Applicant. Both parties therefore regarded the matter as urgent albeit for different reasons. To proceed then with the judgment. In response to the Section 18(1) application, the Respondents have launched a conditional counter application in terms of Section 18(1) read with Section 18(3) in the event that I declare the orders of 30 July 2019 to be decisions as intended in Section 18(1) of the Act.