An Appeal is a creature of statute.
Section 21 (2) of the Courts Act 1993, Act 459 states that ” a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order or decision made or given by a District Court in a civil matter may appeal against the judgment to the High Court.”
Section 21 (3) of Act 459 states that “a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order or decision made or given by a District Court may appeal against the decision or order to the High Court with the leave of the District Court or of the High Court, and the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal”.
Section 21(5) of Act 459 states that ‘the High Court shall not entertain an appeal unless the appellant has fulfilled the conditions imposed in that behalf by the Rules of Court”.
The words ‘shall not’ in section 21(5) of Act 459 make it mandatory for an appellant to have fulfilled the conditions imposed by the rules of court before filing an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court.
The rules of court here refer to Order 51 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 C.I 47.
Order 51 (2) of C.I 47 states that ‘a person wishing to appeal with leave under section 21 (2) of the Courts Act, 1993 (ACT 459) against an interlocutory order or decision of a District Court shall apply for leave within fourteen days from the date of the order or decision against which leave to appeal is sought’.
Order 51 (3) of C.I. 47 states that ‘where the court below refuses to grant leave, the person wishing to appeal may apply to the Court for leave within fourteen days from the date upon which the Court below refused to grant leave’.
That means if an appellant fails to comply with these rules, he cannot come under the mandate of section 21 of the Courts Act 459 to appeal. For instance if the appellant fails to file his appeal within 14 days, his application fails. However provision is made for extension of time to appeal if the appellant shows reasonable cause why he was unable to file his appeal within time.
In the case of Traboulsi & Co vrs Paterson Zochonis & Co Ltd [1973] 1GLR 133 C.A , it was held that it was only the High Court of Judicature that had the power to enlarge or abridge time appointed by the rules of court.