Tribunal dismisses Sky Drillers’ points in limine, confirms main hearing
Correspondent | Wednesday September 2, 2026 10:41
The ruling follows an interlocutory dispute arising from proceedings before the Tribunal on June 5, 2026, when the main matter was scheduled for hearing.
On the day, Sky Drillers sought a postponement to enable it to engage its erstwhile attorneys.The Competition and Consumer Authority agreed to the postponement, which the Tribunal subsequently granted.
However, after the postponement had been granted, the Authority attempted to raise an objection concerning the manner in which Sky Drillers had raised its points in limine.The Tribunal did not make a pronouncement on the attempted objection at the time, prompting the Authority to file an application for directions on June 15, 2026.
Sky Drillers opposed the application and raised three points in limine, arguing that the Authority had failed to comply with Rule 29(5) and had not brought the application as soon as practicable and had launched it under the wrong rule.The Tribunal dismissed all three objections.
On the first point, the Tribunal acknowledged that the authority had failed to indicate whether Sky Drillers agreed or contested the directions sought. However, it found that the omission had caused no prejudice.
“The Tribunal as an adjudicating body of equity, must look at the matter in totality,” the ruling states.
It further held that it would not be just to defeat the application because of a single procedural omission where there was no prejudice.
“Where it is just and in the interest of justice, this Tribunal will seek the path that yields the most justified outcome,” it ruled.
The Tribunal also rejected Sky Drillers’ argument that the Authority had failed to bring the application as soon as practicable. It noted that the application was filed nine calendar days after the June 5 hearing, amounting to five court days.
“The applicant moved swiftly to seek directions after the previous hearing and therefore the second point in limine is dismissed,” the Tribunal held.
On the third objection, Sky Drillers argued that the Authority was seeking to vary the June 5 order and should therefore have proceeded under Rule 50 rather than Rule 29.
The Tribunal rejected the argument, stating, “The applicant does not seek to vary the order of 05 June 2026 but rather seeks directions on its attempted motion at the previous hearing,” reads the ruling.
The Tribunal also dismissed Sky Drillers’ contention that the Authority’s application constituted an abuse of court process, finding that it could not be described as “gross abuse of court process, frivolous or vexatious.'
However, despite dismissing Sky Drillers’ three points in limine, the Tribunal ruled against the Authority’s attempted objections.
“Having granted the postponement on the above reasoning, the attempt to raise the objections as envisaged by the Applicant was then, in the view of the Tribunal, irregular,” it held.
The Tribunal’s final order states that Sky Drillers’ points in limine filed on June 22, 2026, were dismissed.
It further ordered: “No preliminary objections to the Respondent’s points limine filed in the main matter have been noted by the Tribunal,” reads the order.
Both parties remain at liberty to file or raise any lawful point before the hearing, including supplementary documentation or heads of argument.
The Tribunal confirmed that its June 5 order stands and that both the points in limine and merits of the main matter are to be heard. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.