LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Extension of Time – Liberal Grant Unless Made Mala Fide or Prejudicial to Respondent
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Applications for extension of time to enable an appellant's case to be properly and fully placed before the court are usually granted unless brought mala fide or would cause injustice to the respondent, and delays attributable to counsel should not be laid at the appellant's door.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The law is that such applications, which are meant to ensure that the appellant's case is properly and fully placed before the Court, are usually granted unless they are brought mala fide and grant of them will do injustice to the respondent... It is also trite that delays for which counsel can be held responsible should not be laid at the doors of his client (appellant)."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle reflects the courts’ recognition that justice is better served by hearing appeals on their merits rather than dismissing them on procedural technicalities. Extension of time applications facilitate proper presentation of appellate cases and should therefore be liberally granted unless specific countervailing factors exist. The presumption favors granting extensions to ensure that substantive rights are not forfeited due to procedural defaults, particularly when such defaults were not the fault of the appellant. The principle establishes two negative conditions that justify refusing extensions: (1) mala fides—bad faith, such as deliberate delay tactics, abuse of process, or strategic manipulation of time limits; and (2) prejudice to respondent—where granting the extension would cause actual injustice to the respondent that cannot be compensated by costs or other measures. Mere inconvenience or delay is insufficient; there must be demonstrable prejudice. Importantly, the principle establishes that counsel’s delays should not be visited upon clients. This recognizes the practical reality that litigants depend on legal representatives and should not lose substantive rights due to counsel’s errors, neglect, or inefficiency. While this doesn’t excuse all counsel defaults (particularly where the client was complicit), it provides protection for innocent clients prejudiced by counsel’s failures. The overall approach favors substantive justice over procedural regularity, ensuring that appeals are decided on merits rather than dismissed for technical non-compliance with time limits, provided the appellant acts without bad faith and the respondent suffers no real prejudice.