Ahmad v Sahore

In *Ahmad v Sahore*, the applicant sought to strike out an appeal and remove a second respondent from the proceedings. The application to strike out the appeal was based on the assertion that the Court of Appeal lacked the power under rule 1613 of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT) to set aside an order made by the court below. The applicant also sought the removal of the second respondent on the grounds that this party had not been a party to the original proceedings and had not been formally joined.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it possessed the authority, under rule 1613 of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT), to set aside an order of the court below, and if not, whether the appeal constituted an abuse of process. A secondary issue concerned the status of the second respondent, specifically whether their participation in the appeal was permissible given their non-involvement in the original proceedings and lack of formal joinder.

The Court of Appeal determined that rule 1613 did not confer power upon the Court of Appeal to set aside an order of the court below. Consequently, the appeal, in so far as it sought to set aside the order of the court below, was considered an abuse of process and was partially struck out. Furthermore, the Court found that the second respondent had not been a party to the proceedings below and had not been formally joined to the appeal, leading to their removal from the proceedings.