Delay condonation rejected where the appellant gave no satisfactory explanation for prolonged inaction after receiving the certified order copy.

A delay-condonation plea for a 979-day late appeal was rejected because the explanation was found wholly insufficient. The record showed that the certified copy of the Tribunal's order had been received well before limitation expired, yet no satisfactory account was given for the prolonged inaction, including the period after expiry of limitation and the later delay before filing. On those facts, the court refused to condone delay and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 979 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation filed in support of the delay-condonation application was found to be wholly insufficient. The appeal papers showed that the certified copy of the Tribunal's order had been received long before the expiry of limitation, yet no satisfactory explanation was given for the prolonged inaction, including the period after the relevant limitation period had expired and the later period preceding filing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was dismissed, resulting in rejection of the appeal.

---