IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION)
AT LAUTOKA

Civil Action No. HBC 10 of 2004

BETWEEN:

R. C. MANUBHAI & COM. LTD
a limited liability company having its registered office at Ba, Fiji.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

MOHAMMED RAFIQ 
of Vaileka Town, Rakiraki, Fiji, Businessman
DEFENDANT

Appearances  : Mr Vakacakau for Defendant/Applicant
 : Mr Dayal for Plaintiff/Respondent

ADDENDUM TO THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON
10TH NOVEMBER 2014

In pursuant to Order 20 Rule 10, this court on its own motion Notice the Parties to appear on 18th November 2014 at 9.30 am.

This court now pronounce that in the Judgement delivered on 10th November 2014 at page 1 in the caption the Defendant's address was stated as Vaileka Town, Takiraki, Fiji, Businessman, and the word "Takiraki" was stated instead of "Rakiraki", due to typographical error.

At page 2 in paragraph 10 line 3 and in the sub-heading of paragraph 11 and in line 4 of paragraph 11 and at page 3 in paragraph 15 line 7 the word 'extention' was stated instead of the word 'extension' due to typographical errors.

At page 7 in paragraph 47 line 4 the word "serous" was stated instead of the word "serious" due to typographical error. 

And now the said caption and the paragraphs are corrected to read as follows, for all purposes of the said judgement.

(1)	Caption 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

(WESTERN DIVISION) AT LAUTOKA

Civil Action No. HBC 10 of 2004

BETWEEN 	:	R. C. MANUBHAI & COM. LTD a limited liability company having its registered office at Ba, Fiji.	

			PLAINTIFF	
				
AND	:	MOHAMMED RAFIQ of Vaileka Town, Rakiraki, Fiji, Businessman	
			DEFENDANT	

(2)	Paragraph 10

Order 59 Rules 9 and 10 of the High Court Rules provide the  procedure for filing of appeal and leave to enlarge time to file appeal. This application is made pursuant to order 59 Rule 10 seeking for extension of time to file appeal and stay of execution proceedings under Order 59 Rule 16 of the High Court Rules 

Application for Extension of Time

(3)	Paragraph 11 

The factors the court should consider in exercising its powers under Order 59 Rule 10 (1) are stated in the judgment of Norwich and Peterborough Building Society –v- Steed [1991] 2 ALL ER 880 as follows: 

"In deciding whether to grant an extension of time the court would take into account the length of and the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application was granted and the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted…………………"

(4)	Paragraph 15

The Privy Council in Ratnam –v- Cumarasamy 1964 3 AER 933 at 935 state that:

"The rules of court must, Prima facie, be obeyed, and, in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken, there must be some material on which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose of the rules which is to provide a time table for the conduct of litigation."

(5) 	Paragraph 47

In considering the claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff in this matter it will be entitled to the interest on the claim if a judgement is entered in its favour at the end of the trial. Therefore, I am of the view that the Respondent will be adequately compensated even if the proceedings are delayed and no serious prejudice could be caused to the Respondent if the leave to appeal out of time is allowed. However, if the application is disallowed the Applicant/Defendant will be bound by a defective Order which would amount to a miscarriage of justice and cause prejudice to the applicant.

Delivered at Lautoka this 18th day of November 2014

Lal S. Abeygunaratne
Judge