JUDGMENT

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin JC:

A. Introduction

[1] I called the matter up for case management on 23 May 2022 and questioned parties whether this matter should appropriately be heard before the Sessions Court.

[2] The defendant agreeing to the same, applied orally for this Court to exercise its power to transfer the proceedings to the Sessions Court under O 57 r 1 of the Rules of 2012.

[3] The plaintiffs unhappy with the said order, have since appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[4] The following paragraphs contain my reasons for exercising my powers under O 57 of the Rules of 2012 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to have the matter heard before the Sessions Court. I find that based on the disputes between the parties, this suit will be conveniently and fairly tried before the Sessions Court.

B. The Dispute Between The Plaintiffs And The Defendant

[5] When I peruse the Statement of Claim by the 16 plaintiffs, it is apparent to me that the claims relate to the alleged failure by the defendant to deliver vacant possession according to the time frame provided for under each of the Sale and Purchase Agreements and under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 196