Strict compliance with procedural rules is mandatory; failure to timely file appeals without cogent grounds leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Maidzuara Mohammed JC:

[1] Enclosure 1 was an appeal by the Appellant against the 20 decision by the Sessions Court delivered on 4 June 2021 where the Sessions Court granted leave to the respondent to enter judgment against the Appellant pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of (" ROC ") 2012.

[2] The Appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff in the proceedings before the Sessions Court. They will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant as they appeared in the Sessions Court.

Proceedings Before The Sessions Court

[3] The writ and statement of claim were filed by the plaintiff on 25 January 2021. On 10 March 2021, the defendant filed their Defence. On 25 March 2021, the plaintiff filed their Reply.

[4] On 25 March 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of application (encl 10) pursuant to O 14 of the ROC 2012.

[5] On 4 June 2021, the Sessions Court granted order in terms of 5 encl 10.

[6] On 5 July 2021, the defendant appealed to the High Court against the decision by the Sessions Court delivered on 4 June 2021.

Determination By The High Court

[7] In opposing encl 10, the defendant filed an affidavit (encl 12).

[8] In encl 12, the defendant averred that:

"6. Vide letters dated 28 July 2021 and 29 October 2021, the plaintiff's solicitors had given formal notice to the defendant's solicitors that the plaintiff would raise preliminary objections on the following matters:

a) The notice appeal was filed and served out of time; and

b) The memorandum of appeal was not filed and served on the plaintiff's solicitors.

7. Order 55 r 5 of the Rules of 2012 stipulates the following:

"(2) The appeal under this rule shall be brought by filling a notice of appeal in Form 111A in the Registry of the relevant Subordinate Court, with a copy extended to the Registry of the High Court within fourteen days from the date on which the decision was pronounced and serving a duplicate copy of the notice on every other party to the proceedings.

(3) Within one month after the filing of the notice of appeal under this rule, the appellant shall file the record of appeal in the High Court, and the record shall contain copies of:

(a) The application for the decision;

(b) All pleadings filed;

(c) All affidavits filed in support of or in opposition to the application; and

(d) The order or draft order of the decision appealed from:

Provided that the record of appeal shall not include the notes of evidence, the grounds of judgment or any memorandum of appeal."

8. In the case of Abdul Hamid Mohd Amin v. Ramacon Corporation Sdn Bhd , 2015 MarsdenLR 922 , the learned High Court judge held that:

"(1) Non-compliance of a mandatory provision of the ROC which is fundamental in nature will no longer be regarded as technical non-compliance of a rule that may be remedied under O 1A of the RHC. Where there are blatant breaches of rules and procedure that are mandatory and fundamental in nature, the applicant needs to show strong and cogent grounds that are considered sufficient in order to invoke the Court's discretionary power to grant extension of time.

(2) The word 'shall' in procedural rules is mandatory provision that cannot be casually disregarded but must be strictly complied with and adhered to, save under exceptional circumstances. The appellant had admittedly failed to file his AR within the expressly stipulated 30 days deadline but had only done so 41 days after filing and service of the notice of appeal. He had thus breached the mandatory provisions of O 55 r 4(1) of the ROC .

(3) Although the delay was mere 11 days, the grounds advances by the appellant for the delay were far from strong and cogent for the Court to justifiably exercise its discretion in favour of an extension. The ground, that the delay was due to an oversight of the time limit of 30 days to file the AR while awaiting for the notes of evidence and grounds of judgment to be supplied by the trial Court, lacked credibility in view of the fact that the appellant was then represented by so