Green Island Cement Co. Ltd. v. Lui Wah t/a Speedwell Auto Services

CACV000057A/1986

BETWEEN

Coram: Cons, V. -P., Fuad & Kempster, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1986.

Date of delivery of judgment:  23rd September, 1986.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. This is an application to extend time for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. It is the end result of proceedings taken against the Applicant in June last year by the Plaintiff, Green Island Cement Co. Ltd. They took the form of an application under Rule 64 of the District Court Civil Procedure (General Rules) which is similar to Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The land in question was in the occupation of the Applicant. Eventually an order for possession was made by His Honour Judge D'Almada Remedios, who at the same time granted a stay of execution of approximately 2 months, so that the Applicant was due to give up possession on the 30th November last year.

2. In January this year the Applicant applied through his solicitors to set aside the Judge's order. Subrule (7) of Rule 74 expressly confers the necessary power. However the learned Judge, after a full consideration of what was then put before him on behalf of the Applicant, which differed materially from what had been advanced to him in the first instance, refused the application. The Applicant appealed from that refusal, and this Court dismissed his appeal on the 21st May this year. But with the consent of counsel for the company we stayed execution of the order for possession for' a further 6 months.

3. Rule 3 of the Order in Council which regulates appeals to Her Majesty in Council provides that the application must be by motion or petition within 14 days of the judgment concerned. The application by the Applicant is dated the 24th July, that is 2 months after our decision.

4. In papers filed in support of his application the Application has referred us to an affidavit and other documents that were executed well before the hearing in this Court. For that reason they afford him no assistance.

5. One letter did not fall into that category. It is addressed to the Chief Justice and mentions the Applicant's intention to make research into old maps and surveys. In our view that research will likewise afford him no assistance, for the issue on which he ultimately lost below was one of credibility.

6. Today the Applicant has shown us letters which relate to his efforts to persuade the authorities to delay the rebuilding scheme which is planned for the area in which the premises in question are situate. He also explained that one reason for his delay was occasioned by his attempt to get assistance from the Legal aid Department. It would seem that his appeal against a refusal of aid was rejected.

7. In our view time is important in this matter. It affects the development of an area much larger than the piece of land in question. We are not prepared to extend time and the application is therefore refused.

Representation:

Lui Wah, Defendant/Applicant in person

Anthony Ismail (M/s Deacons) for Plaintiff/Respondent