30 Jun 2022
Because the applicant absconded during the statutory 14‑day appeal period and the asserted ignorance of the law was not a special circumstance, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time.
21 Mar 2022
The application (Saman Pemula Terpinda, Lampiran 4) was dismissed because applicants failed to comply with mandatory procedural rules (late filing of notice of appeal and failure to file record of appeal), failed to provide satisfactory explanation for excessive delay in seeking to set aside a consent judgment, did not plead or prove exceptional circumstances (fraud, mistake or total failure of consideration) required to set aside a consent judgment, and their conduct caused prejudice to the respondent (notably unpaid rent).
7 Feb 2022
The High Court exercised its discretion to allow the extension of time because the appellant filed an immediate application to regularise the nine-day delay, would suffer prejudice if appeal struck out, and no injustice to respondent would result; accordingly the stay was refused for want of special circumstances, the strike out was dismissed, the Sessions Court order of 22 March 2021 was set aside, and the SAR lacked power to make a final striking out order.
28 Dec 2020
Applicant had been represented by counsel who informed the Sessions Court that the accused could not be traced and his phone was switched off; a warrant of arrest had been issued and the Sessions Court recorded that it was no longer in the interest of justice to await appearance or execution of the warrant and therefore validly proceeded under s425A KTJ. There was no material showing denial of fair trial; the conviction and sentence stood and the High Court dismissed the application and refused extension of time to file notice of appeal.