Martin v. Suduhamy – sllr 1991 volume 2 page 279

Brief
In the case between Martin (Plaintiff) and Suduhamy (Defendant), the court addressed whether an appeal could be maintained where the appellant failed to perfect a security deposit by complying with the hypothecation requirement under section 757(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, and if such a defect might be cured through judicial discretion pursuant to section 759(2). It was determined that the appellant’s omission was deliberate and resulted in material prejudice to the respondent. The court held that non-compliance with statutory requirements for hypothecation of appeal security is a substantial defect, not a mere technicality, reaffirming the principle that mandatory procedural obligations securing respondents’ rights cannot be waived or excused in absence of bona fide justificatio