Preface

149
elected for the continuation of the hearing, the fact that his counsels via his letter
raised preliminary objection that this appeal is out of time.
The applicant in his submission, failed to convince this court to the contrary.
His argument that he does not lay his hand on the record of proceedings of the
lower Court tends to be negligence on his part.
Upon our perusal of the record of proceeding of the lower Court; Bundung
Court, the action speaks for itself. This case was decided on March 2007. The
appeal is filed before this honorable Court this year 2011. This court is in total
agreement with the submission of the respondents that this appeal is out of time.
The applicants violated the provision of Cadi Appeals Panel Rules, which
reads: an appeal shall be filed within Thirty days from the date of the order or the
judgment appealed against.
The rule vividly stated the procedure to be adopted if appeal to be filed out
of time as enshrined in order IV rule 15. Rule 13 of the same order stipulates that
an appeal shall not be brought out after the expiry of the time allowed for the
appeal unless the panel grants an enlargement. No application for such an
extension is file before us. Though in the eyes of law, there is no appeal before us,
talk less of entertaining the applicants for the prayer of the stay of execution.
In a book called As’halul Madarik page 156 it had been stated:
Meaning: the existence of what the law does not recognize is like non- existence at
all.
In view of the above, this application is refused, and appeal struck out for
non compliance with Cadi Appeal Panel Rule on the process of filing this appeal.