JUDGMENT

Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA:

There were three applications before us namely encls. (7a), (8a) and (11a). Enclosure (7a) was an application by the appellant for leave to file an additional Record of Appeal. Enclosure (8a) was an application also by the appellant for a stay of the order made by the High Court on 29 December 1997 pending the final disposal of the appeal by this court of the said order. Enclosure (11a) was an application by the respondent praying for an order that the appellant's appeal filed in this court on 7 January 1998 be dismissed on the ground that it was filed without first obtaining the leave of this court and therefore incompetent.

The three applications came before us on 28 May 1998. We decided to hear encl. (11a) first as the fate of the other two applications would depend on the outcome of the application in encl. (11a). We unanimously allowed the application with costs. The Notice of Appeal was struck out. Accordingly the motions in encls. (7a) and (8a) must be dismissed and we therefore dismissed them but with no order as to costs.

If we may briefly state the background of this case which is as follows. The respondent (the plaintiff below) on 28 July