Mrs. JingLang Li, the applicant, filed a suit against the Respondents. This suit was a follow-up to what she described as her unlawful eviction from the NHC’s apartment and renting it out to the 2nd Respondent. The Land Division of the High Court entered a judgment in her favour. Aggrieved with the outcome of the suit, the Respondents filed separate appeals to the Court of Appeal, which were later on consolidated. The execution of the decree was stayed pending the determination of the appeals to this Court. The Respondents were also asked to deposit a Bank’s guarantee in the sum of shillings Two Hundred Million (200,000,000/=) within two weeks of the delivery of the Ruling. Only the 1st Respondent had deposited a Bank’s guarantee within the designated period.
The 2nd Respondent sought to be allowed to deposit cash instead of the Bank’s guarantee but the application was dismissed. The Applicant therefore tried to execute against the 2nd Respondent but faced administrative difficulties. First, there were two Notices to Show Cause that were filed in Court. While in one Notice the Deputy Registrar appointed auctioneers, in the other Notice the Judge in Charge of the Land Division and the Registrar stopped the execution proceedings. The Applicant then wrote a letter of complaint to the Hon. Chief Justice to draw his attention to those difficulties, prompting this suo motu revision proceeding.