Murray v Jacobs

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1967
• Neutral Citation: AG 1967 CA 1
• Docket Number: Motions Nos. 3 & 5 of 1966
• Date: 21 June 1967

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.,; Gordon, J.A,; Lewis, J.A

Motions Nos. 3 & 5 of 1966

Murray

and

Jacobs

Appearances:

Miss F.M. Lake for applicant.

Mr. C.E. Francis for the respondent

practie and procedure - Appeal — Application for extension of time to make appeal — Federal Supreme Court of Appeal Rules, 1959, O.11 rr 3(4), 5 and 16.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the attorney-at-law representing a client was ill and had to leave the country. Recommendation was made to the client that a request be made to another attorney to file the appeal. This was not done properly. When the original attorney returned she made an application but adopted the wrong procedure since she applied to the judge instead of applying straight to the court. The issue to be decided was whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to make the appeal.

Held: Where one fails to file an appeal within the prescribed time, then the court will only exercise its discretion and grant an extension of time under exceptional circumstances. In this case the circumstances were not exceptional enough to obtain a favourable exercise of the courts' discretion.

Lewis, C.J.

1 The notice of motion in this matter (No. 3 of 1966) contains two applications. One, an application to review an order made by a Judge of the British Caribbean Court of Appeal, refusing leave to file an appeal beyond the tine limited by law for so doing; and secondly, an application on its own footing to this Court sitting in bane for an extension of time within which to appeal.

2 The court, at the commencement of the hearing of the application, pointed out to learned counsel for the applicant that the application to the single judge was so much out of time, that he had no jurisdiction; and that it would be impossible for this court, even if it had the power, to review that decision.

3 I say, even if it had the power, because Order II r.16 under which the first part of the application is brought, deals only with applications in matters pending before the court; and as this was an application for extension of time within which to file an appeal, it follows there was as yet no matter pending before the court. Therefore the court intimated that it would deal with this motion purely as an application under Order II r.3 (4).

4 Learned counsel who appears for the applicant, has herself sworn an affidavit an the 2nd December, 1966 in her capacity as a solicitor,...