Background: The case involved a dispute between family members. Michael Popoff, the appellant, filed a lawsuit against Larry Mike Popoff and Patricia Mildred Popoff, the respondents. The specific details of the dispute were not extensively discussed, but the core issues revolved around pleadings filed by Michael Popoff, which were struck out by the chambers judge.

Legal Arguments/Issues: Michael Popoff argued that the chambers judge erred in striking his pleadings under Rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The specific errors included striking pleadings under Rule 9-5(1)(a) for disclosing no cause of action and Rule 9-5(1)(b) as frivolous or vexatious. The appellant contended that the judge incorrectly referred to evidence, contrary to Rule 9-5(2), and improperly weighed evidence and found facts, akin to conducting a summary trial. The respondents, Larry Mike Popoff and Patricia Mildred Popoff, presumably sought to uphold the lower court's decision.

Judgment: The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge erred in multiple respects, including misapplying Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (b), incorrectly assessing evidence contrary to Rule 9-5(2), and conducting actions resembling a summary trial without proper procedural basis. The Court concluded that the appellant’s pleadings did disclose a cause of action and were not frivolous or vexatious. The Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the notice of application, without prejudice to further arguments related to the Limitation Act or want of prosecution.

Costs/Award: The document did not specify the total amount of costs or award in favor of the successful party.