Kora Sesay & Ors v Allie M. Kamara & Ors (MISC APP 6 of 1996) [1996] SLSC 2 (7 July 1996)

f 7 re : Hysoe Appe 6/96 : a . IN THO SUPREN COURT OF STARRA LUONS BETWESN: - - i . KORA SHSAY & ORS — APPELLANTS: - AND : a ATLIE Me KAMARA é ORS — RESPONDENTS

‘ A.P. Sorry-Kaml for Appellants _ Renner Thonas & Co. for Renpondentn : HohMrsJustice D-l.P. Take = Chinf Justice Bae Honwir. Justice Well. Joko-Gmart ~ 150 og ” HonsMr. Justice N-D. Alhadi -aA ae aah 4: ; By a Notice of Motion dated the 31/7/96 the Applicants/\ppelianta ae ' applied for leave to appeal out of time and an enlargement of time within ; Bs which to do sos “ees: The judgment sought to appeal againat me dolivored on the 2/4/96 a ' by the Court of Appeal. By Rule 26(1) of Supreme Court Rules 1922, where eRe -“ian appeal lies as of rignt the appellant shall lodge his notice of appeal fhe Es within three months from the date of the jwlgnent appealed »mingt wlean ie this court onlarges tho times It ie clear from the application before un tha ' no appeal has beon lodged within the stipulated time referred to above. It is thie failure that has necitiated this application. : Rule 26(4) provides.....'No application for enlargement to timo pho in which to appeal shall be made after the expimtion , of ono month from the expimtion of the time prescribed within which an appeal may be brought. Every application for enlargement of time shall be by motion suprorted by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for the aprlication and by grounds of appeal which prim : facie show good cause for leave to be granted. ‘hen time : is 80 enlarged a copy of the order granting awh enlarge- . ment shall be annexed to the notice of appeile The first part of this sub-rule ir not under consideration in this application _ before usy Since this Notice of Notion has been filed within the one month fro: - the expiration of tha timo to appenl.

' Tho whole issue now in what aro tho circunstancen in which this court can exercise its discretion for an enlargement of time within which to file an appeals ‘The second part of the sub-rule requires that the affidavit in support

y miat set forth good and substantial reasone for the application and by crowds ‘of appeal which prima facie show good cause for lene to he imntode

[Revvsnses

a "The pum pra subatantiad rasnene elven for the applien tion ave yes thore slated in the aftidavit in mumport by Kam Saeny shevein aha : “oe Aeposed that in June wil Sasoy (which alno T fake to ba the ona : Appollant) foll 41) amt ghe took hin to the provineear where he diade That she stayed on the provinces to awit the J0th Any Covamonye ‘hat she ‘dia not inform her eoliejter unen sha wae Leavings ‘That if MAWL . Senay had not ind amd the roadn wove enfa aha wold not have etayan in ~ tho provinees for the Length ef pariad ahe tonke That pha mn not ie expooting the jutgment to he foliveved at that time ginoa tha Jmdanent te + had been rorerved for avers tim Feavse This in ny view in an intiotmant ch . Bgainst ‘the court for jt in provided in Seatten 120(16) of tha eemnti tare ook » ‘thon followine-sesseye! Tvery Convt oatahliched maar thie Consett ition a 2 i. : doliver sta daajegan in wYLking net Inter than ties three panthr after tha nonatusion at the eridange “4 and fine) eddyorman oy avpnania ar apnent, vod” a TUMIR ATL partion tn the epuse ar mq tay he . Neterming with duly authenticate eentes ne tha ive DeriRion on the Ante of Maliwarye tharantet In my view the court shanta nat Tondi)y veluaa on apylicetion undor this. provision of the Riles other than (ot reanone Lor the delay not bean Aisclosad in the pupporting affidavit ant oy the EroUMIA oY groan al Apperd do not dinclosa argeble issnen. ‘tha fact that the only crovnd. of Appeal ~ in this cane is on the facta aoon not impinge its validity for eonsideratian i by Wis comnts Otlierwine a retwan on auch (ond vow hé in toxproted ae ' this court prejuditne the Gamien tn ha Sxmed on the apporle Thera might be AsAMen whores Fh can he nhow tit the tmind court did not take into acoomt al]. the relevant facts oy Uiak the trict Judy minrppranended the avinence . Or dmim an inference whieh there ip no eviderios to support 4+ - Sea Lofthouse Vae Leicerter Corporation (1948) 64 PTR. 604- Ammin it mirht he that the . Plnintifl, te respondent herein wma weble to asiablinh hie elatm with that dogree of certain ty that in required ina Civil Suity tint de with that pre~ Dendarance of probability foxy hin ta succaed in hig elosme Th which cane thin , Court 18 bowl to interfere with the finding af fact dy the oorte Tha quention of gmod reason for not lodeing: the appedd within the Stipulated time has to un considaved not wi th refaranca te the Length of * Hime ipso facto but with raference to the eirommatances of the canes ‘the dolay in thin caae in nat Mmenmeacted with the then prevatliny- InFeonrh ty — of tha comtry in the provinses where the Im1k of the paymlation vara hata a behind rebe) Vines and tha non aslabi lity of taurporta tion to tha emp tal ‘ re t

wn, (eel . - Ny x . yo a : offre, Te fants deposed ty by Kort Senay in her atfidavit, in my . view dre credible+ . test qn conclusion T wi31, say that an loner there are armable insues ’ disclosed on the Hotice of Appetly and auf fiat ant and Belavant explanation oy. given for the delay, % xefina}. to enlarge the time will mnifestly prejudices * the appellant's right to have his appen], adjudicated upon thereby eanne manifest injustice to hime In the light of all what T have pe ia T will avant the appliertions ae pf 5

oh fae - lt by, ( : . Lys t Tran eduintice Mei nate The We . TEE. pe . +f