Liberal condonation of refiling delay still requires concrete facts; a bare assertion was insufficient here.

A delay of 91 days in refiling an appeal was not condoned because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause with concrete facts. Although the appellate tribunal's rules allow rectification of defects and time extension on a liberal basis, the request still required some factual explanation demonstrating diligence. The application and affidavit contained only a bare assertion that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was due to logistical constraints, without particulars capable of explaining the delay. In the insolvency context, expedition remains important, and an unexplained refiling delay cannot be excused on a general liberal approach.

---

---

Issues: Whether a delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal should be condoned on the basis of a liberal approach despite the absence of any concrete explanation in the application and affidavit.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay in refiling was examined in the context of the appellate tribunal's rules permitting rectification of defects and extension of time for sufficient cause, together with the settled position that delay in refiling is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis. The Tribunal also noted the special emphasis on expedition under the insolvency regime and observed that, even where a liberal approach is adopted, the applicant must still state some facts which prima facie explain the delay and show diligence. In the present case, the application contained only a bare assertion that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was attributable to logistical constraints, without any factual basis capable of explaining the 91-day delay.

Conclusion: The delay in refiling was not condoned, as no sufficient or reasonable cause was shown.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not survive after rejection of the condonation request, and the proceedings were brought to an end.

Ratio Decidendi: Even in matters of refiling, a liberal approach does not dispense with the need to plead some concrete facts showing sufficient cause and procedural diligence; a bare and unexplained assertion is inadequate to justify condonation.

---