Court considered whether the two had capacity to swear on behalf of the rest of the
applicants in a representative order and the other 5000 and whether the suit was time
barred. Court held that the two had capacity to swear on behalf of the rest and that the
application was not time barred. Court was satisfied from its findings that all or any of
the nine applicants were vested with same and equal authority to represent themselves

and all the others in the same interest and could swear affidavits in that capacity.
Further more from court’s findings it was satisfied that the application was not time
barred as it could not be proved by the respondents.
Accordingly court overruled the preliminary objections by the respondents in favor of
the applicants.