Judicial review applications must be filed within 40 days as per procedural rules, with extensions granted only upon sufficient justification for delay.

Introduction

[1] This appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court in Kuantan (Mariana Yahya J presiding) dated 3 October 2013 dismissing the appellant's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.

[2] This appeal is concerned with whether time should be extended to apply for leave for judicial review. However, strictly speaking, this is a side show. The main show is the application for leave to apply for an order of mandamus against the respondent, directing the respondent to make payment of the judgment sum in favour of the applicant as stipulated in the certificate issued pursuant to s 33 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 dated 7 March 2008 in the original suit. On 7 April 2008, the certificate was served on the State Legal Advisor acting on behalf of the Government of Pahang and the Director of Forestry for the State of Pahang. There was no payment.

The Antecedent Facts And Proceedings

[3] This case has had a chequered history which needs to be explained in order to appreciate how the present position is arrived at.

[4] On 9 December 2002, the appellant filed a suit against the State Government of Pahang and the Director of Forestry for State of Pahang in the Kuantan Civil Suit No: MT(2)-21-9-2002 for breach of contract.

[5] After a full trial, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the appellant in the sum of RM37,127,471.60 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 31 December 2000 to the date of settlement. The respondent appealed against the said judgment to the Court of Appeal.

[6] On 13 February 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on the ground that the Record of Appeal has not been filed within time. An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 17 September 2008.

[7] In the meantime, on 7 March 2008, the Senior Assistant Registrar issued a certificate under s 33 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and was served on the State Legal Advisor. No payment was made by the State Government of Pahang and the Director of Forestry for the State of Pahang.

[8] On 16 July 2008, the appellant filed on application for a mandamus order which included the State Secretary and the respondent as defendants ("the first mandamus application"). The appellant also sought to amend and include the Menteri Besar of the State of Pahang as a party. However, on 14 October 2008, the appellant withdrew the first mandamus application.

[9] On 15 October 2008, the appellant filed an application for judicial review for a mandamus order against the Menteri Besar of Pahang ("the second mandamus order").

[10] On 20 April 2009, the High Court granted the second mandamus application directing the Menteri Besar of Pahang to pay the monies stipulated in the certificate dated 7 March 2008 within 14 days.

[11] On 22 April 2009, a notice of appeal was filed by State of Pahang against the decision given on 20 April 2009.

[12] On 9 October 2009, the Court of Appeal allowed the Menteri Besar's appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the wrong party was named as respondent and the second mandamus application was out of time as time began to run from 7 April 2008.

[13] By notice of appeal dated 5 November 2009, the appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The Federal Court on 5 October 2010 dismissed the appellant's application.

[14] On 20 October 2010, the appellant filed an application at the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review ("the third mandamus application"). The appellant also applied for an extension of time to make the application. The application