South India Corp. (T) Private Ltd. v. H. J. Stanely & Sons. Ltd. Misc. Civ. Application 1-D-68, 30/1/68, Georges C. J.

South India Corp. (T) Private Ltd. v. H. J. Stanely & Sons. Ltd. Misc. Civ. Application 1-D-68, 30/1/68, Georges C. J.

Respondents’ advocate went on overseas leave after the High Court trial of the case between appellants and respondents, and after appellants’ application for extension of time for Appeal had been served upon his firm. He had not, at that time, seen the record. He returned some 2 months later, and 3 weeks after that the firm approached the appellants’ advocated to discuss the argument of certain grounds of cross-appeal. The latter firm did not consent, and respondents’ advocates filed an application for extension for time for filing notice of cross-appeal.

            Held: Rule 9 of the East African Court of Appeal Ruled, 1954, provide that time for taking any step in connection with an appeal to that Court may be extended for “sufficient reason.” It has been held that the “mistakes of a legal advisor” may amount to “sufficient reason. [Citing for the principle (but distinguishing the result) Shah H. Barmal v. Santchi Kumari (1961) E.A. 679.] This would also include “default of a legal advisor,” each case being dealt with on its facts “to produce a result consistent with justice and the overriding consideration that cases should be dealt with on their merits.” Here, where the delay was relatively brief, the absent advocate was the member of his firm “especially familiar” with the case, and the other side was notified within 3 weeks of his return that a cross-appeal was desired, there was “sufficient reason” for granting the extension. Extension granted.