Condonation of delay refused where inconsistent explanations and laches showed no sufficient cause for filing late appeals.

A condonation application failed because the explanation for a one year and four months delay was inconsistent and vague, with material differences between the facts presented before the Tribunal and those urged in the High Court. The court treated the delay as deliberate inaction, negligence and laches rather than a legally acceptable impediment, and found no cogent basis to exercise discretion in favour of condonation. The refusal to condone the delay was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of a delay of one year and four months in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was found to be inconsistent and vague. The facts stated before the Tribunal differed from those urged in the High Court, which affected the credibility of the cause shown. The delay was held to reflect deliberate inaction, negligence, and laches rather than any legally acceptable impediment, and no cogent ground was made out for exercising discretion in favour of condonation.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was established for condoning the delay, and the refusal to condone was upheld.

---