In other words, the Applicants cannot hold on to the District Court's judgment of December 18, 2023, and the determination there that the District Court lacks jurisdiction, since this is precisely the determination that was reversed when the Applicants' application for leave to appeal against the aforementioned judgment was granted.
- Before concluding, there is room for a final clarification: the judgment of the District Court of June 11, 2025, referred only to Applicant 2, apparently due to the fact that only Applicant 2 signed the body of the appeal and the affidavit attached to it (and despite the fact that Applicant 1 is also mentioned as an appellant in the same matter). In the proceeding before me, Applicant 1 is the signatory of the application for leave to appeal, as well as the affidavit that accompanied it, when Applicant 2 clarified, on September 21, 2025, that he was joining it. Applicant 1 further noted that in the framework of the proceeding before the Registrar, "both applicants filed an appeal, and not only appellant No. 2". Accordingly, I am satisfied that the judgment of the District Court that is the subject of this application for leave to appeal should be regarded as a judgment that applies to the two applicants together.
- In summary: for the reasons detailed above, the application is hereby denied. Accordingly, the request for a stay of execution filed by the applicants on January 19, 2026, is also denied.
Since no response has been requested, there is no order for costs.
Granted today, 7 Adar 5786 (February 24, 2026).
Yechiel KasherJudge
|