The court observed that at the stage of proceedings parties had delved
into substantive matters of the petition and that conflicts in the evidence
would not be resolved at that stage. The court also considered the
respondent’s contention as to the applicant’s locus standi and it was
resolved that the defending a constitution was a duty imposed by the
constitution whose implementation could be by filing a constitutional
petition to challenge the legality law.
The court considered the grounds for grant of the temporary injunction
and observed that a prima facie case had been made when the applicant
proved the existence of the impugned practice directions; that the petition
was neither misconceived, frivolous nor vexatious and that and the
balance of convenience was in favor of the applicant whose constitutional
right of fair hearing
The application was thereby allowed.