1. ) ABDUL HADI BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) MOHAMAD RODZI BIN SAKOOR v Kalimuthu A/l Govanasamy

Case Significance

Reinforces that appellate time limits under Order 55 of the Rules of Court 2012 are mandatory: solicitors' negligence is not a sufficient excuse, an extension application must itself be timely and explained, and the merits of an appeal cannot override procedural non-compliance.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application to extend time to file a Record of Appeal out of time, and it upholds the mandatory character of appellate time limits over the merits of the underlying appeal. The appellants had filed their notice of appeal in time against a Sessions Court decision in favour of the respondent, but failed to file the Record of Appeal by the deadline of 24 July 2024, doing so only on 17 September 2024 — well over a month late. Their application to extend time under Order 55 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 was itself filed ex post facto, after the original period had lapsed and after the respondent had moved to strike out the appeal. In support, the appellants attributed the delay to unintentional factors — waiting for the Sessions Court's grounds of judgment, not receiving a case-management notice, and a miscalculation of dates by their solicitors — and argued that a delay of some 34 days was not so long as to cause serious prejudice and that the appeal should be heard on its merits. The respondent objected that the extension application was itself out of time without satisfactory explanation, that the delay was due purely to the solicitors' own negligence with no force majeure, and that the appellants had acted only after the strike-out application, showing indifference to the rules. Relying on authorities including Ratnam v Cumarasamy and Tan Siew Peng v OCBC Bank, the court held that the strength of an appeal cannot be a passport to breach mandatory procedural rules, and that justice includes procedural fairness to the opposing party and compliance with the law. Finding the failure entirely the result of avoidable negligence, with no cogent explanation, the court held that the conditions for an extension were not met, refused the application, and ordered the appellants to pay costs of RM3,000; the notice of appeal remained struck out.