More particularly, the Court held that
“The Applicant’s own conduct defeats her claim of imminent and irreparable harm. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the Applicant has not demonstrated the existence of imminent or exceptional circumstance that will justify the urgency of the application filed almost 3 months after the act complained of.
In the light of the Applicant’s failure to meet the requirement of urgency, the Court finds no basis to assess the remaining criteria for provisional measures, same being cumulative. The request for provisional measures as outlined by the Applicant, same not substantiated, is therefore dismissed.”
By Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem-Sai
GNPC begins Technical Advisory on potential Springfield Afina Well takeover
