9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed on March 12, 1999. Analysis: The appellant filed a petition under rule 12 of the Procedure Rules seeking restoration of the appeal that was dismissed on March 12, 1999. The appeal was initially scheduled for hearing on February 2, 1999, but was adjourned to February 22, 1999, as neither the appellant nor their counsel appeared. A letter from the appellant's counsel was received on February 13, 1999, requesting that the appeal be considered on merits based on the memorandum of grounds of appeal and affidavit. The Tribunal, considering the counsel's request, disposed of the appeal on merits on March 12, 1999. Subsequently, new counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not provide proper instructions to the previous counsel who made the request, and sought to set aside the order dated March 12, 1999, for a rehearing of the appeal. The new counsel also mentioned the filing of additional evidence along with a petition for its acceptance. The Tribunal noted that the order dated March 12, 1999, was not an ex-parte order but was based on the grounds of appeal and records as requested by the appellant's counsel. Rule 12 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1986, under which the petition was filed, was found inapplicable as it pertains to the effect of death, insolvency, etc., on appeal. The Tribunal clarified that rule 11, dealing with the dismissal of appeals for appellant's default, was likely the rule intended to be invoked by the appellant. Rule 11 allows for setting aside the dismissal order or ex parte proceedings only if the appeal was dismissed for default or proceeded ex parte, which was not the case here. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was decided on merits at the request of the appellant's counsel and not dismissed for default, making rule 11 inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition seeking restoration of the appeal and rejected the petition for additional evidence. The decision was based on the understanding that the order dated March 12, 1999, being an order on the merits, could not be set aside under rule 11, as it was not a dismissal for default or an ex-parte proceeding.
|
