JUDGMENT

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are six related appeals, the first three appeals, S-02(NCVC)(A)-432- 02-2018 ("Appeal 432"), S-02(NCVC)(A)-436-02-2018 ("Appeal 436") and S-02(NCVC)(A)-437-02-2018 ("Appeal 437") before us are the appeals by the defendant against the decision of the High Court allowing the respective plaintiffs' claim for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD). The appeals in S-02(IM)(NCVC)-1481-02-2018, S-02(IM)(NCVC)-1482-02-2018 and S-02(IM) (NCVC)-1483-02-2018 are the appeals by the respective plaintiff against the decision of the High Court Judge allowing the defendant's application for stay of execution. It was agreed by the parties in all the appeals that the decision of this Court with regards to the first three appeals will bind the other three appeals. The appeals essentially concerned the interpretation of the Architect's Certificate of Extension of Time which was issued to the main contractor which in turn had extended the delivery of vacant possession. After considering the written and oral submissions of parties, we unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. These are the reasons for our decision