Palisge Harison vs Land Commissioner and Hon. Attorney General – CA PHC 127/2006-2013

The case between Palisge Harison and the Land Commissioner alongside the Hon. Attorney General addressed the procedural issue of whether an appeal should proceed when the appellant fails to pay required brief fees after notice. It was held that non-compliance with the payment of brief fees, despite due notice by registered post, justifies rejection of the appeal. The decision underscores the principle that adherence to prescribed procedural requirements is necessary for the prosecution of an appeal, as established under relevant appellate procedure rules. The outcome serves to reinforce the enforceability of procedural defaults, highlighting that appellate rights are contingent upon compliance with statutory obligations.

A. W. A. Salam, J. — It was determined that the appellant failed