Halkhu Dida Alias Shulka & 1 other v Republic

The court identified the relief sought as enlargement of time to appeal out of time. It observed that most grounds on the face of the motion were irrelevant to an extension application, but one disclosed that the delay was not intentional, having been occasioned by lack of legal representation and delay in obtaining the proceedings. The first applicant's affidavit accounted for these hardships on his own behalf and, under an Authority to Plead, on behalf of the second applicant. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions expressly signalled non-opposition. On that basis the court exercised its discretion in the applicants' favour.

Having enlarged time, the court made consequential directions to give the order practical effect. Where the appeal had already been filed pursuant to the enlargement, it was deemed properly filed, curing any objection premised on the original delay. Where the appeal had not yet been filed, the court fixed a definite window of thirty days from the date of the ruling for the record of appeal to be filed, ensuring that the applicants' restored right of appeal was exercised within a defined period rather than left open-ended.