Description
Stay of a winding up petition – bound by their pleadings – overriding objective principle – substantive justice – jurisdiction to grant orders – mere omission in the chamber summons – failure to cite a relevant provision of the law conferring jurisdiction – justice without technicality – the Holy Bible – books of Luke 5:17-26 and Mark 2:1- 12 – how Jesus healed a paralytic without technicalities – liberal interpretation.
- Application for stay of a winding up petition pending determination of another case, S. 283 of the Companies Act.
- Parties are bound by their pleadings (p. 13).
- The overriding objective principle requires courts to focus on substantive justice (p. 16).
- The jurisdiction to grant orders in any application is not conferred by the chambers summons but by the law (p. 18). What a court was given by the Act of parliament cannot be taken away by a mere omission in the chamber summons (p. 20).
- Failure to cite a relevant provision of the law conferring jurisdiction is not fatal (p. 18).
- Justice without technicality – the Court referred to the Holy Bible, in books of Luke 5:17-26 and Mark 2:1- 12 on how Jesus healed a paralytic without technicalities (pp. 18 – 19).
- With the introduction of the overriding objective, courts need to give a liberal interpretation of any provision without obstructing justice on case basis (pp. 19 – 20).
