JUDGMENT

Steve Ritikos JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the appellant's application (encl 2) for abridgement and extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal against the Sessions Court 's order dated 31 October 2025, which struck out the appellant's claim against the 1st and 2nd Respondents under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"), with costs of RM3,000.00. Consequential extension of time to file the Record of Appeal is also sought by the appellant.p>

[2] The appellant's application is premised upon O 3 r 5 and O 92 r 4 ROC 2012, supported by affidavit evidence, and tenders unreserved apologies for the delay. The respondents oppose, citing inordinate delay, lack of sufficient cause, and prejudice to finality in litigation.

Background Facts

[3] The Appellant's cause of action in the lower Court is premised on, inter alia, a breach of tenancy agreement, damages arising from loss of Halal certification, export market opportunities, for wrongful distress proceedings, negligence on the part of the 3rd Defendant, and false and malicious claim.

[4] The Sessions Court struck out the appellant's claim on grounds including res judicata, issue estoppel, collateral attack on final orders, and abuse of process.

[5] Under O 55 r 5(2) ROC 2012, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within 14 days. The deadline was 14 November 2025. The Appellant filed on 21 November 2025, seven days late, and served only on 18 December 2025. No Record of Appeal has been filed.

[6] The application for extension was filed on 23 December 2025, more than 50 days after the deadline.

Appellant's Contentions

[7] The Appellant explains the delay as arising from:

1. Misunderstanding by its clerk that the time limit was one month;

2. Counsel's involvement in political campaigning during the Sabah State elections;

3. Inadvertent oversight, for which apologies are tendered.

[8] The appellant submits that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents which cannot be compensated by costs, and that the appeal has merits, particularly on the validity of the tenancy agreement signed by the 2nd Respondent, a firm without legal personality.

[9] The appellant argues that the striking out was interlocutory, without trial or witnesses, and that miscarriage of justice would result if extension is denied.

Respondents' Contentions

[10] The respondents submit that the delay is inordinate, involving late filing, late service, and failure to file the Record of Appeal.

[11] They argue that ignorance of mandatory timelines is not excusable, citing Ratnam v. Cumarasamy & Anor; [1965] 1 MLJ 228 and Chin Hua Sawmill Co Sdn Bhd v. Tuan Yusoff Bin Tuan Mohamed; [1974] 1 MLJ 58, where solicitor's mistake was held insufficient cause.

[12] Authorities such as Khor Cheng Wah v. Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd; [1996] 1 MLJ 223; [1997] 1 CLJ 396; [1996] 1 AMR 846 and Ong Guan Teck & Ors v. Hijjas Kasturi; [1982] 1 MLJ 105; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 616; [1982] CLJ 31 emphasise that procedural timelines are fundamental and must be obeyed.

[13] The respondents further contend that the appeal is devoid of merit, as the tenancy agreement and distress proceedings were already adjudicated, and the appellant's claim constitutes a collateral attack barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

Issues For Determination

[14] The issues before this Court are:

(a) Whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause to justify extension of time;

(b) Whether prejudice would be caused to the respondents;

(c) Whether the merits of the intended appeal are relevant at this stage.

Applicable Principles

[15] The discretion to extend time under O 3 r 5 and O 92 r 4 ROC 2012 is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly. In Scomi Oiltools Sdn Bhd v. Petrozchem Oilfield Services Sdn Bhd, the Court of Appeal held:

"[23] The basic principles in allowing extension of time had been decided in numerous cases. But an extension of time should not be granted as a matter of course. There must be special circumstances shown to the Court to explain all t