Mary Nona v. Fransina – sllr 1988 volume 2 page 250

In the case between Mary Nona and Fransina, the court addressed the issue of whether compliance with Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules 1978 is mandatory when seeking revision of a lower court order. It was held that Rule 46 requires the filing of comprehensive records—specifically, the order sought to be revised, relevant pleadings, evidence, and additional contextual documents—at the time of presenting the application. This decision reaffirmed the principle that strict procedural compliance is essential for revisionary review, relying on precedents such as Navaratnasingham v. Arumugam and Mohamed Haniffa Rasheed Ali v. Khan Mohamed Ali, and emphasizing that incomplete documentation renders proper adjudication impossible. The impact of the case underscores that failure to comply with mand