This is an application for stay of execution filed by the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/Applicant. I have read the application and the supporting affidavits. I have also read the affidavit in opposition. Regard has been given to the principles governing the grant or otherwise of applications of this nature.

It is noted that the court ordered both counsel to file their written submissions. None of them has complied. The court however finds it necessary to determine the application without the submissions of the lawyers as they have both shown that they do not want to address me.

After examining the affidavit filed by the Defendant/Applicant, I find no merit in the application. The judgment upon which the Defendant/Applicant has lodged the appeal which also forms the basis of the application has been found to be fraudulent. It is therefore my view that any purported act based on the said fraudulent judgment is void.

Again, the claim by the Defendant/Applicant that the Defendant shall suffer hardship is untenable. In my view, the Defendant/Applicant having benefited from the services provided by the Plaintiff/Respondent cannot turn round to be talking about hardship. Rather, the non-payment of the Defendant/Applicant for the services which the Plaintiff/Respondent gave to them all these years is working hardship on the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Respondent is a reputable company dealing in the repairs and sale of vehicles and are capable of refunding, in the event the Defendant wins the appeal, any money paid to it in accordance with the judgment. For the following reasons I refuse the application for stay of execution. The application is dismissed.

I make no order as to costs.