Preface

98
the appellant. As such the application may seem to be statute barred by virtue of
Order XXV1 rule 120 of Cadi Court Civil Procedure Rules 2010 which provides
that '' No application for enlargement of time to appeal shall be entertained after
ninety days of the decision being appealed against.'' We were, however,
constrained to strictly apply this provision to the instant application due to an
averment deposed to by the appellant/applicant in paragraph 3 of affidavit in
support of the application which raises an obvious need to do justice at all cost,
where the applicant states that:
''.... when judgment was made at the Cadi Court in Banjul, I
instructed a lawyer to file an appeal for me, but due to reasons not
known to me he did not file it. And before I came to know of this
problem it was late so I have no alternative than to try other source
to file my appeal.''
It is clear from this averment that the failure in filing the appeal within the
regulation time was neither the actual and or deliberate act of the appellant nor was
it done with her knowledge or permission. Conversely the appellant did what she
ought to have done when she briefed her counsel to file the appeal within time.
Ironically the perpetrator of the act of failure to file the appeal within time was a
lawyer who is presumed to be fully aware of the implication and consequences of
filing the appeal out of time. This being the case we were of the opinion that we
cannot be justified to punish the applicant who is not knowledgeable in law for the
negligent act of a professional lawyer. It is trite that the court cannot visit the sin of
the counsel on the litigant. See Alhaji Alhassan Maiwarwaro VS. A'ishatu
Garba & 1 or (2007) 3 S. L. R. (pt. IV). Based on these reasons and coupled with
the fact that this is a Sharia appeal where emphasis is placed on doing substantial
other than technical justice, we were of the view that the interest of justice in the