Following possession proceedings, the claimants were evicted from their home. The claimants then applied for permission to appeal the possession order out of time and for a stay of execution. They claimed there had been oppression as the property was being marketed at an undervalue.
The court found that there was no jurisdiction to grant a stay where the warrant for possession had already been executed, unless the possession order on which it was issued was itself set aside, the warrant had been obtained by fraud, or there had been an abuse of process or oppression in its execution. The alleged marketing at an undervalue could not amount to oppression in the execution of the warrant as it post-dated the eviction. If there was any issue of undervalue (and the court was not impressed with the claims here made), then the correct forum for that was for the claimants to bring a separate claim, not to attack the prior, already executed warrant.
Similarly, there was no jurisdiction to permit the claimants to reenter the property pending the hearing of an application for permission to appeal out of time.
John Ayodele Da Rocha-Afodu & Another v Mortgage Express