Judgment No. 19/18 Chamber Application SC 97/18 Ref Case No. SC 847/17 6. Appellants were not afforded the opportunity to oppose the costs which were not requested by the respondents and to place in that regard additional evidence bearing on why such confirmation should be countenanced. As is clear from the above grounds of appeal, the applicants take issue with the merits of the matter rather than the narrow procedural issue of whether or not their application before the court a quo was urgent. I make the point at this stage that the applicants are approaching this Court to test the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the court a quo, both in the appeal and in the urgent Chamber Application before me as I demonstrate below. Being faced with another notice of removal scheduled for 9 February 2018, the applicants, on the same date, filed the present application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. In the application, the applicants initially prayed for an order staying execution of the decision of the Magistrate’ Court under case number MC 35920/17 and of the decision of the High Court under case number HC 9296, pending finalisation of the appeal under case number SC 847/17. At the hearing of the matter, the first applicant successfully applied to amend the prayer in their application to include an order that the registrar be directed to set down the appeal on the earliest available court date. There was no argument from the first respondent against the granting of this part of the order which became the first part of the draft order. It is the granting of the second part of the order that has exercised my mind. 5