IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI
[On Appeal from the High Court]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ABU 032 of 2024
[In the High Court Family Division Appeal No 0009 of 2017]

BETWEEN:
MANJULA DEVI
Appellant
(ORIGINAL RESPONDENT)

AND:
SATYA NARAYAN SAMY
Respondent
(ORIGINAL APPELLANT)

Coram: Prematilaka, RJA

Counsel: Mr. M. Saneem for Appellant  
   Mr. D. Nair for Respondent 
			
Date of Hearing: 24 February 2025 

Date of Ruling: 24 March 2025 

RULING

[1]	The appellant’s solicitors had lodged summons on 26 March 2024 seeking extension of time to appeal the judgment of the High Court delivered on 25 January 2024, supported by an affidavit from the appellant.    
   
[2]	The respondent had filed an affidavit in opposition to the extension of time application on 25 June 2024 and also filed summons on 28 June 2024 for a stay of the execution of the High Court judgment. However, both parties have later come to an understanding regarding the stay of the execution and agreed that they would proceed only with the leave to appeal out of time application.   
Should the appellant’s application for extension of time to appeal in terms of Rule 17(3) of CA Rules be allowed?

Law on enlargement of time

[3]	It is well settled now that this Court has an unfettered discretion in deciding whether or not to grant the leave out of time. However, the appellate courts always consider five non-exhaustive factors to ensure a principled approach to the exercise of the judicial discretion in an application for enlargement of time namely (i)	 the reason for the failure to file within time (ii) the length of the delay (iii) whether there is a ground of merit justifying the appellate court’s consideration (iv) where there has been substantial delay, nonetheless is there a ground of appeal that will probably succeed? and (v) if time is enlarged, will the respondent be unfairly prejudiced? Nevertheless, these matters should be considered in the context of whether it would be just in all the circumstances to grant or refuse the application and the onus is on the appellant to show that in all the circumstances it would be just to grant the application. In order to determine the justice of any particular case the court should have regard to the whole history of the matter, including the conduct of the parties. In deciding whether justice demands that leave should be given, care must also be taken to ensure that the rights and interests of the respondent are considered equally with those of the applicant.

[4]	Since the reason for the delay is an important factor to be taken into account, it is essential that the reason is properly explained - preferably on affidavit - so that the court is not having to speculate about why the time limit was not complied with. And when the court is considering the reason for the delay, the court should take into account whether the failure to observe the time limit was deliberate or not. It will be more difficult to justify the former, and the court may be readier to extend time if it was always intended to comply with the time limit but the non-compliance arose as a result of a mistake of some kind.

[5]	The length of the delay is determined by calculating the length of time between the last day on which the appellant was required to have filed and served its application for leave to appeal and the date on which it filed and served the application for the enlargement of time. In this case the application for leave to appeal out of time is late by about 15 days as the appeal should have been filed on or before 11 March 2024 but filed on 26 March 2024. This length of the delay is not very substantial. 40 days have been considered ‘a significant period of delay’. Delay of 11 days and 47 days also have defeated applications for enlargement of time. Even 04 days delay requires a satisfactory explanation. However, in some other instances, delay of 05 months and 02 years respectively had not prevented the enlargement of time although delay was long and reasons were unsatisfactory but there were merits in the appeal. 

[6]	Rules of court must, prima facie, be obeyed and in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure is required to be taken there must be some material on which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose of the rules which is to provide a time table for the conduct of litigation. 

[7]	As for the reason for the delay the appellant claims in her affidavit that she got a copy of the High Court judgment on 30 January 2024 by email from her lawyer who, however, did not advise her about the appealable period. She had contacted her lawyer via email on 11 and 25th February 2024 regarding the timeline for appealing but received no reply. Having received no response, she had got in touch with her current solicitor through one of her relatives in Fiji on 28 February 2024. The new solicitor had to collect all the documents necessary to evaluate the prospects of an appeal and then lodge it in the Court of Appeal. the appeal including the Magistrates court decision as she did not have them with her and her previous solicitor would not part with them either. Once the grounds of appeal were settled, the appellant had to get her affidavit executed in New Zealand on 25 March 2024 so that the application for extension of time to appeal could be filed on 26 March 2024. The respondent in his affidavit had not substantially challenged these reasons. Therefore, I am reasonably persuaded to accept the explanation for the delay as genuine, reasonable and to conclude that the delay was beyond the control of the appellant.

[8]	Even where the length and the reasons for the delay are adequately explained to the satisfaction of Court, if an appellant is unable to satisfy Court as to his or her chances of success in appeal if extension is to be granted, then the application must be rejected; even if an appellant fails to satisfy court as to the length and reasons for the delay, nevertheless a Court shall allow an extension of time if it is satisfied that, an appellant has a reasonable chance of success should an application were to be granted unless the reason for the delay in either case is owing to a mistake or misconception as to the correct applicable legal position on the part of lawyers. The Supreme Court commenting on these three position of Dr. Almeida Guneratne, J.A.  said  that the effect of propositions (i) and (ii) subject to proposition (iii) is to make the merits of the appeal the paramount, indeed the decisive, consideration and that goes too far because there may be cases where the merits of the appeal may not be that good, but where the overall interests of justice mean that the litigant should not be denied the opportunity of having his appeal heard. By the same token, there may be cases where the merits of the appeal are strong, but the prejudice caused to the other party if the appeal was allowed to proceed would be so substantial that it would be an affront to justice for the delay to be excused. The Supreme Court added that the bottom line is that each case should be considered on its facts, with none of the factors which the court is required to take into account trumping any of the others. Each factor is to be given such weight as the court thinks appropriate in the particular case. In the final analysis, the court is engaged on a balancing exercise, reconciling as best it can a number of competing interests. Those interests include the need to ensure that time limits are observed, the desirability of litigants having their appeals heard even if procedural requirements may not have been complied with, the undesirability of appeals being allowed to proceed which have little or no chance of success, and the prospect of litigants who were successful in the lower court having to face a challenge to the decision much later than they could reasonably have expected. As for the proposition (iii), the Supreme Court said mistakes made by lawyers is not an exceptional category for this purpose and the fact that the mistake was made by lawyers is just one matter to be taken into account in the whole scheme of things, but it can in no way be decisive.

[9]	However, Dr. Almeida Guneratne, P took a different view later and said that if the length and reasons for the delay, (criteria (a) and (b) laid down in Khan’s case ) are explained to the satisfaction of Court, then the matter should be left to the full Court to determine the appeal on the merits because, while a party who files an appeal within time is vested with an unqualified statutory right, party who seeks enlargement of time to appeal requires the exercise of the court’s discretion to earn that right. That right is earned when the aforesaid criteria (a) and (b) are satisfied. If the threshold criteria as envisaged in (a) and (b) above are not met by an applicant for enlargement of time to appeal, then such an application should be rejected and/or dismissed without the need to consider criteria (c) and (d) laid down in Khan’s case in as much as the above reasons would not be applicable. A distinction must be drawn between a party who explains the delay to the satisfaction of Court to be treated on a par with a timely appeal and a party who fails to explain the reasons for the failure to file a timely appeal. 

[10]	Because Dr. Almeida Guneratne, P has not taken into account the views of the full court judgment of the Supreme Court in Fiji Industries Ltd v National Union of Factory and Commercial Workers in his second ruling in Pacific Energy (South-West Pacific) Pte Ltd v Chaudhary and also because I am bound by the Supreme Court decision, I am inclined to follow the Supreme Court decision in accordance with section 98(6) of the Constitution of Fiji incorporating the doctrine of stare decisis. 

[11]	Therefore, I am still required to consider the prospect of the appellant’s appeal before the Full Court, for interest of justice demands that I take a holistic approach by considering all the factors set out in Native Land Trust Board v Khan (supra) in addition to any other relevant factors before exercising my discretion either to grant enlargement of time or not.

[12]	In Native Land Trust Board v Khan (supra) Chief Justice Gates sat as a single judge of the Supreme Court and considered an application for enlargement of time in a civil matter to lodge a petition for special leave appeal which is governed by section 7(3) of the Supreme Court Act. Chief Justice Gates applied the same criteria for special leave in criminal matters under section 7(2) of the Court of Appeal Act as well. However, there is are no similar provisions in the Court of Appeal Act governing leave to appeal or extension of time matters under section 20(1)(a) and (b).  It is the fourth limb of the test “is there a ground of appeal that will probably succeed?” in the criteria set out in Native Land Trust Board v Khan (supra) that some have equated to mean “whether there is a real prospect of success” and applied under section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal Act. However, the latter is directly taken from the relevant test under CPR r.52.6(1) for an application for permission to appeal in UK i.e. permission to appeal may be given only where –

a. the court considers the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or
b. there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

[13]	It is in this context that Lord Justice Peter Jackson in England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in R (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 895 said that:

	‘The test for the grant of permission to appeal on an application to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court or Family Court under the first limb of the relevant sub-rule is that the appeal would have a real prospect of success. As stated in Tanfern v Cameron-MacDonald (Practice Note) [2001] 1 WLR 1311 CA at [21], which itself follows Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 AER 91 CA, there must be a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success. There is no requirement that success should be probable, or more likely than not.

[14]	Therefore, the test that there must be a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success and that there is no requirement that success should be probable, or more likely than not should be adopted to determine leave to appeal and extension of time under section under section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal Act is, at least seems arguable. 

[15]	In South Africa  in order to succeed with their applications for leave to appeal to appeal, the applicants must satisfy the requirements of section 17 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 which sets out ‘reasonable prospect of success’ as the threshold. This section provides as follows:

“Leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of  the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospect of success or (2), there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.”

[16]	Smith v S (475/10) [2011] ZASCA 15; 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) (15 March 2011), paragraph 7, a judgment by Plasket AJA for the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (as he then was) said of ‘reasonable prospect of success” as follows:
  
“What the test of reasonable prospect of success postulates is dispassionate decision based on the fact and the law that the Court of Appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of the trial Court. In order to succeed therefore the applicant must convince the Court on proper grounds that he has prospects of success on appeal and that those prospects are not remote but have a realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established than there is a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be characterised as hopeless. There must in other words be a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal.”

[17]	To delve any further into this issue regarding the actual test under section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal Act for leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal, this is perhaps not the place or the time. But, I would formulate the question; is it real prospect of success or reasonable prospect of success? Or whatever the label you attach is the test simply whether the appellant has a realistic chance or prospect of success as opposed to fanciful or remote chance or prospect of success? The answer perhaps is ‘yes’. 

[18]	As for the merits of the appeal, the appellant has proposed 11 grounds of appeal. Without repeating the same here, I could say that all of them involve a serious examination of the evidence led before the Magistrates court. This exercise is only possible when the transcripts and judges notes, if any are available to the full court as no appeal records could be compiled unless there is an appeal on foot.   

[19]	Therefore, as for the merits of the appellant’s appeal, just as Keith J in the Supreme Court said in Fiji Industries Ltd v National Union of Factory and Commercial Workers there may be cases where the merits of the appeal may not be that good, but where the overall interests of justice mean that the litigant should not be denied the opportunity of having his appeal heard. I would adapt the same principle mutatis mutandis to the current situation where I am unable to assess or make any finding as to the degree of prospect of the appeal before the Full Court due to all the grounds of appeal being on mixed facts and law and also for want of evidentiary material that was available to the lower court but not before me. I also think that this is a case where the overall interests of justice may demand that the appellant be given extension of time to file notice of appeal subject to cost.  

[20]	When it comes the prejudice to the respondent, he has not averred any irreparable or irrevocable prejudice that will be caused as a result of allowing leave to file the appeal out of time. 

[21]	In all the circumstances above discussed, taking an all-inclusive view of the relevant law and the material before me, I am inclined to grant the appellant enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal but cost would be ordered against the appellant on a party and party scale to the respondent in respect of proceedings so far which were purely necessitated by the appellant’s failure to exercise her right of direct appeal within the appealable time. I am also persuaded to order cost against the appellant as I have been compelled to allow the appellant’s application despite the respondent’s opposition without assessing the degree of prospect of success on appeal.    

Orders of the Court:

(1)	Leave to file a Notice of Appeal against the impugned High Court judgment dated 25 January 2024 is allowed.

(2)	Appellant to file and serve Notice of Appeal on the respondents within 21 days from the date of this Ruling.

(3)	Thereafter, appeal to proceed under Rules 17 and 18.

(4)	Order (1) is conditional upon the appellant paying $2000.00 as costs of this application to the respondent within 21 days hereof. 

Hon. Mr. Justice C. Prematilaka
RESIDENT JUSTICE OF APPEAL

Solicitors:  
        Saneem Lawyers for the Appellant 
Sairav Law for the Respondent
     Solicitors:  
       Sunil Kumar Esquire for the Appellant 
Sarju Prasad Esquire for the 1st Respondent
02nd Respondent absent and unrepresented.
No appearance for 03rd and 04th Respondents