Delayed leave to appeal and lack of authority to file rendered the special appeal incompetent.

A delayed application for leave to appeal was not accepted where the governing rule required the request to be made orally before or at the time of judgment, and no sufficient cause was shown for making it about 14 days later. The court noted that delay may be condoned in appropriate cases, such as bona fide mistake or court-related circumstances, but found no such explanation on the facts, so the certificate was liable to be revoked. It also held that an appeal must be presented by a duly authorised person; because the special appeal had been filed without written authority from the appellants, it was incompetent. Both preliminary objections were upheld and the special appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the certificate enabling the special appeal was invalid because the application for leave was made after the judgment was delivered and the delay was not liable to be condoned; and (ii) whether the special appeal was incompetent because it was presented by a person not authorised by the appellants.

Issue (i): whether the certificate enabling the special appeal was invalid because the application for leave was made after the judgment was delivered and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Rule 97 required an application for the declaration that the case was fit for appeal to be made orally before or at the time of delivery of judgment. The expression used in the Rule was construed to mean that a later application for such declaration was not contemplated as of right. The Court nevertheless recognized that delay could, in appropriate situations, be condoned where the party was prevented from making the request at the proper time for reasons such as bona fide mistake or circumstances attributable to the court. On the facts, the application for leave was made about 14 days after judgment and disclosed no sufficient reason for the omission to seek leave at the time of pronouncement.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained, the certificate was liable to be revoked, and the objection succeeded against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the special appeal was incompetent because it was presented by a person not authorised by the appellants.

Analysis: Presentation of an appeal amounts to acting on behalf of the party and therefore requires written authority. The record showed that the person who presented the special appeal had no authority from the appellants, and no explanation was offered to cure that defect. In the absence of valid authorisation, the appeal could not be treated as properly instituted.

Conclusion: The special appeal was presented without authority and was incompetent.

Final Conclusion: Both preliminary objections were upheld, with the result that the special appeal did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule requires a leave application to be made before or at the time of judgment, a delayed application can be entertained only on a satisfactory showing of cause, and an appeal must be instituted by a person duly authorised to act for the appellant.

---