BCC 531/2005

The original dispute involved a request to put a preventative detention on the accounts of a shop connected to a hotel which it was claimed had had its ownership transferred by a simulated proceeding. The key issue was whether the urgent affairs judge had a mandate to cover this type of case.

Background

A claimant filed a case against his neighbour and the chief of the local council requesting the neighbour demolish a wall they had built in the street and pay fees for the urgent case previously filed against them.

The court refused to consider the case against the second defendant.

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision