IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
		
Nature of Jurisdiction:	Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands (Mwanesalua J)	
		
Court File Number:	Civil Appeal Case No.15 of 2011 (On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No. 338 of 2010)	
		
Date of Hearing:		
Date of Judgment:	9 September 2011	
		
The Court:	Chetwynd JA	
		
Parties:	Hugo Kahano		
			
	-v-		
			
	Solomon Islands Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer for Malaita Outer Islands		
			
Advocates:	Mr WK Togamae for the Appellant/Petitioner	
	Ms L Folaumoetui for the Respondents	
		
Key Words:		
Allowed/Dismissed:	Refused	
Pages:		

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1.	The Petitioner in the Election Petition before the High Court has lodged an application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The decision to be appealed is that made by Justice Mwanesalua and which was handed down on 18th March 2011. As I understand the grounds of appeal, it is said that the decision in March has now become crucial because of interlocutory applications made by the Respondents in July. It is difficult to follow that argument. It the March decision is crucial to the Petitioner's case it is highly probable that it has always been crucial. It is not clear why the March decision has only now become crucial and why the interlocutory applications made in July have had that effect. In reality the Petitioner is saying the importance or effect of the March decision was not appreciated until now. It is far too late for the Petitioner to now say he did not realize the significance of the decision.

2.	No explanation as to the exact inter-relationship between the March decision and the July applications is proffered. There is a suggestion the Respondents should have made the July applications before the March decision. That is an issue to raise in the applications, it is not a ground for appealing the decision. 

3.	In any event the appeal has no possible chance of success. The proposed notice of appeal relates to Mwanesalua J's interpretation of section 65(1) concerning the Commission's power to defer part of an election. His Lordship said the power to defer was effective for a period of 14 days after the original date of that part of the election being deferred. The Appellant says the power to defer is only effective for a period of 14 days before the date. Such an interpretation would seem to imbue the Commission with powers to foretell the future and makes a nonsense of the phrase in section 65(1) stating, "it has not been ……possible to carry out any part of an election".

4.	The application for an extension of time is refused. 

………………………………………..
Judge of Appeal