F. Soiza vs Commissioner of Labour and Hon. Attorney General – CA PHC 289/2005-2013

In F. Soiza v. Commissioner of Labour and Hon. Attorney General, the court considered whether an appeal should proceed in light of the appellant’s failure to comply with a notice to deposit brief fees. It was held that non-compliance with the procedural requirement to deposit brief fees following due notice warranted rejection of the appeal. The court reaffirmed that appellate procedure demands strict compliance with directions of the court, referencing procedural statutes governing appeals. The decision underscores that failure to observe mandatory procedural directives affords sufficient ground for dismissal of an appeal.

A.W.A. Salam J. — The findings established that the appellant was absent and unrepresented despite clear notice to deposit the requisite brief fees. Owing to the appe