Suriyadi JCA (delivering judgment of the court)::

[1] Two appeals were set down for hearing before the panel, namely civil appeals W-02–1257 of 2005 and W-02–762 of 2005. Parties had agreed that these appeals be heard together. For easy reference let me state that these appeals had come about as the interveners (hereinafter referred to as the appellants), who were purchasers of the Desarina Condominium, had wanted to intervene in the proceedings between the respondents and another party (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).

[2] The appellants had filed a summons in chambers requesting for leave to intervene and some other prayers, inter alia, a stay order dated 14 August 2003 be set aside or discharged. That application was supported by an affidavit meant to represent all the interveners. The appellants were successful in that leave application but not the other prayers, amongst them, the setting aside of the said order of 14 August 2003. With the appellants and the respondent being equally unhappy they thus had respectively filed the abovementioned civil appeals of W-02–1257 of 2005 and W-02–762 of 2005. The appellants were dissatisfied because they had failed to obtain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document