LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Amendment of Grounds of Appeal – Principles for Granting Leave to Amend Grounds of Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is in the interest of justice to allow amendments to grounds of appeal and additional grounds to be filed where done in good faith and the appellant has not been tardy in bringing the application, as the purpose of grounds of appeal is to clearly indicate areas of complaint against the judgment.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The purpose of grounds of appeal is to indicate clearly the areas of complaints against the judgment appealed against and it is always in the interest of justice to allow not only for amendments of the grounds of appeal but also to allow for additional grounds to be filed if expedient. The principle is that such amendments and additions are done in good faith and the appellant has not been tardy in bringing the necessary application to effect the rights."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle establishes a liberal approach to amending grounds of appeal, rooted in the purpose of appellate proceedings: to facilitate proper consideration of legitimate complaints against judgments. Grounds of appeal serve as notice to the respondent and framework for the appellate court’s review—they should accurately reflect the appellant’s genuine grievances. When grounds as originally filed fail to capture all meritorious complaints or contain errors, amendments should be permitted to ensure substantive justice. The principle recognizes two permissible scenarios: (1) amendments to existing grounds to clarify, correct, or refine them; and (2) addition of entirely new grounds raising fresh issues. Both are favored “in the interest of justice”—a phrase indicating that technical obstacles should not prevent appellate courts from addressing substantial errors. However, this liberality is subject to two conditions: First, good faith: amendments must be genuine attempts to properly frame the appeal, not tactical devices to introduce weak arguments, delay proceedings, or unfairly prejudice the respondent. Second, timeliness: while perfect promptness is not required, appellants must not be “tardy”—they should seek amendments reasonably promptly after discovering the need, not wait until the eve of hearing or engage in deliberate delay. The principle balances competing interests: ensuring appeals address real grievances and correct genuine errors (favoring amendments) against protecting respondents from unfair surprise and preventing abuse of process (requiring good faith and reasonable promptness). Courts should generally favor substance over form in allowing amendments that improve the quality of appellate review.