Judgment No. 19/18 Chamber Application SC 97/18 Ref Case No. SC 847/17 The grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. The High Court grossly erred and misdirected itself in fact and in law by overlooking the fact that a warrant of eviction by the Messenger of Court was only addressed to the first appellant and excluded the second appellant, thereby giving the impression that it was only first appellant who was supposed to be evicted. This was fatally defective. 2. The High Court misdirected itself in that the eviction of the appellant ought to have been stayed in light of the fact that the Magistrates’ Court did not have jurisdiction between the parties’ lease agreement and issue warrants of eviction as the parties had in their lease agreement agreed to the jurisdiction of the High Court (sic). Such an approach was irrational in light of the incontrovertible evidence on record. 3. The court a quo misdirected itself in law by failing to appreciate that there was a court order by the Magistrates’ Court that is case number MC 3294/14 whose facts are similar to the current magistrates’ case number MC 39520/16 which had stayed all the Magistrates’ Court proceedings between the parties pending finalisation of the High Court review application under case number HC 5947/14. 4. The court a quo misdirected itself on the facts and the law in the sense that it grossly failed to consider that there was another review application pending before it under case number HC 7542/17 for review of the Magistrates’ Court proceedings in MC 39520/16. 5. The High Court grossly erred and misdirected itself on the law and facts by failing to appreciate that there was a rent board ruling which set aside the fraudulent rent order which the first respondent relied on to get a judgment for eviction of appellants at the Magistrates’ Court. 4