Compliance with procedural rules regarding notice of appeal is critical, and extensions of time are at the court's discretion based on demonstrated reasons for delay.

[1] There are two appeals before this court. Appeal No PA-12A-NCvC-18-05/2019 ("Appeal No 18") and Appeal No PA-12A-NCvC-19-05/2019 ("Appeal No 19"). The appellant in Appeal No 18 is a director of the appellant company in Appeal No 19. Both appellants were sued by the respondent in the Butterworth Sessions court for failing to repay a friendly loan.

[2] On 12 November 2018 a judgment in default of appearance was entered against the appellants and on 19 April 2019 the appellants' application to set aside the judgment in default was dismissed by the Butterworth Sessions court. On 3 May 2019, which was the last day to file an appeal against the decision, each of the appellants filed separate notices of appeal at the Butterworth Sessions court.

[3] While Appeal No 18 was pending the appellant filed encl 8 seeking an extension of time to serve what he termed as the "unsealed notice of appeal" and the "sealed notice of appeal" both dated 3 May 2019 out of time while the respondent filed encl 10 seeking to strike out the appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal was not served within the prescribed time and that the record of appeal is defective for not containing the order appealed against.

[4] Similarly, in Appeal No 19 the appellant company is seeking the same prayers vide encl 9 that are being sought by the appellant in Appeal No 18 while the respondent is seeking the same prayers vide encl 11 as he seeking in Appeal No 18.?

Enclosures In Appeal No 18

[5] I take the enclosures in Appeal No 18 first. The following facts provide the context within which the applications arose. What the appellant refers to as the "unsealed notice of appeal" is actually the notice of appeal that was on 3 May 2019 filed in court by way of e-filing. On the same day this "unsealed notice of appeal" was sent by facsimile and e-mail to the respondent's solicitors. What the appellant refers to as the "sealed notice of appeal" is the extracted notice of appeal pursuant to the e-filing but which now has been endorsed with the time and date of filing together with the electronic signature of the registrar and the seal of the court. This process was carried out on 8 May 2019 by the court and on 10 May 2019 the extracted "sealed notice of appeal" was served on the respondent's solicitors.

The Relevant Rules And Principles

[6] The relevant provision concerning an appeal against a decision of the subordinate court other than a decision made after trial is O 55 r 5 of the Rules of 2012. An appeal under this rule is validly brought only if the following conditions are satisfied within 14 days from the date of the decision appealed against:

(i) filing a notice of appeal in Form 111A in the registry of the relevant subordinate court;

(ii) extending a copy of the notice of appeal to the registry of the High court; and

(iii) serving a duplicate copy of the notice of appeal to the respondent and every other party to the proceedings.

[7] The first matter that becomes clear is that O 55 r 5 makes no mention of and does not contain the phrase "unsealed notice of appeal" or "sealed notice of appeal". Form 111A does not require a notice of appeal to be sealed and signed by the registrar.

[8] It is trite that an appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out if the requirement of time provided for bringing the appeal is not complied (Tong Lee Hwa & Anor v. Malayan Banking Bhd, ). An appeal brought out of time can be regularised upon a successful application to extend or abridge time pursuant to O 3 r 5 of the Rules of 2012. The proper forum to app