Maintainability of appeal fails where the memo is defective and the signatory's authority is not established.

An appeal was challenged on maintainability because the memorandum was not filed in the prescribed form and no evidence showed that the signatory was authorised to act for the company. The record further indicated that the company was under receivership, the appellant was not functioning at the stated address, and the notices suggested the proceedings related to the erstwhile company rather than a properly constituted legal entity. On those facts, the appeal was treated as not instituted by a competent authorised representative and was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable when it was not filed in the prescribed form and there was no evidence that the person signing it was authorised to do so.

Analysis: The appeal memo was not filed in the prescribed form. The company was shown to be under receivership, the person signing the memorandum was not identified or shown to be authorised, and the record did not establish that any competent legal entity or representative had instituted the appeal. The notices issued by the Registry also indicated that the appellant was not functioning at the stated address and that the notice had been refused on the footing that it related to the erstwhile company.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

---