Mohamed Dzaiddin J

This is an application by the respondent to set aside the Order of this Court made ex parte on November 19, 1982 granting the applicant interim custody of the two infant children until the final disposal of the main case. The respondent is dissatisfied with this ex parte application and contends that it should have been made inter partes and that he be given the right of being heard.

Order 32 Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 provides that the Court may set aside an order made ex parte. This rule embodies the fundamental rule of practice that a party affected by an ex parte order may apply to the Court to discharge it, inasmuch as he has not had an opportunity of being heard — see Boyle v Sacker (1888) 39 ChD 249, 251 at page 251 per Cotton L.J. In addition to this rule, the Court has also an inherent jurisdiction to revoke leave given ex parte. As an example, see the Supreme Court Practice, 1979 Edition, Volume I, page 520 under Order 32/1 — 6/11.

There are a number of well settled principles regarding ex parte applications, one of which is that when applying for an ex parte order, it is the duty of the applicant to make a full and fair disclosure to th