Curable defect in unsigned appeals required notice and opportunity to rectify before rejection and remand.

Appeals filed through counsel but not signed by the appellants were treated as containing a curable procedural defect under Rule 213. The appellants should first have been given notice or a deficiency memo and an opportunity to rectify the omission before rejection. Because the appeals were rejected outright without such opportunity, the matter required remand for fresh consideration, with the appeals to be decided on merits if the defect was cured.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals filed through counsel but not signed by the appellants themselves were liable to be rejected outright, and whether the defect was curable so as to warrant remand.

Analysis: The appellants had authorised counsel to file the appeals. Rule 213 required the appeals to be signed by the appellants, but non-signing was treated as a curable defect. Before rejecting the appeals, the appellants ought to have been put on notice or issued a deficiency memo and given an opportunity to cure the defect. Since the appeals were rejected straightaway without affording such , the matter called for remand.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeals was not sustained and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity to rectify the defect; if rectified, the appeals were to be decided on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained a remand for reconsideration after curing the procedural defect, and the appeals were not finally decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedurally defective appeal should not be rejected without first affording an opportunity to cure a curable defect when the defect does not go to the merits of the case.

---