Would this happen in your jurisdiction?

[no.to...@gmail.com]

This jurisdiction claims that its new 1996 Constitutions makes it
probably the most just in the world.
And the legislation re. eviction considers the occupants age.

The record shows that in the founding affidavit, the evictor gave the
occupant's correct name and identification number, where in this
jurisdiction: the ID.No's first 6 digits, show the persons date of birth.

So that ID.No: 410220*******, means the person was born in
1941 Feb. 20.

In the founding affidavit, the evictor wrote that the occupant was
65 years old; which is the age considered in the legislation.
At the time [2015 December] the occupant was 74 yo.

Since a 5 year old whiskey is one year old [at least] perhaps this
was the trick of the evictor's advocate?

In the answering affidavit, the occupant pointed out that by
his correctly given ID.No, his age was 74 yo, and NOT 65.

At the hearing the self representing occupant had little to say,
since the rules are that only facts alleged, in the written pleadings,
and not rebutted are to be considered; and the full argument had
been filed.

Since the evictor's black gown wearing advocate told his whole
repetitive multi-page argument/s, which was already on the papers
it seems that the Judges do NOT read the pleadings before the
"hearing"?

2 days later [to give the pretense that the Judge would read the
pleadings before deciding], the Judge gave his decision, stating:
" the applicant claims that the respondent is 65 years old, and the
respondent claims that he is 74",
and went on to explain other issues.

The judge thereby "marked/ticked-off the box" of one of the crucial
factors that the legislation required him to consider, implying:
"I've done what I'm supposed to do, and it's not my fault that
there's no concrete proof of the occupant's age."

NB. the WRITTEN order states:
"Having read the documents filed of record and having considered
the matter:-
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-"

Is it too much to expect the judge to be able to confirm from the
evictor's documents [given ID.No.], that the the occupant's age
was in fact 74?

In your jurisdiction, would they repeatedly publish the blatant lie
"Having read the documents..." ?

In this matter, the issue of the occupant's age was irrelevant,
and only one of the many false [perjured under oath] statements
rebutted by the occupant.
The matter correctly depends on considerations of minority
shareholder oppression, in what is considered [in common law
jurisdictions] to be a quasi-partnership [for small family private
companies].
These considerations were beyond the comprehension of the black
gowned advocate and "My Lord".

Bringing a complex minority shareholder oppression dispute as a
simple eviction order is a clever trick.

But is it justice?
Do such kleva-triks promote "terrorism"?