[2006] 2 CLJ 489 (CA)
By not naming the applicant as a respondent, in which he is one of the parties in the court below, and supposedly one party in the proceedings, his status and statutory rights will be affected by any substantive decisions in seduction. By not being named as a respondent in this seduction, he will face problems if a question arises against the appellant. Regarding the issue of non-compliance with allotments of the Rules, the non-compliance has resulted in many exhibits not being included in the seduction record. The appellant has deliberately belittled these Principles. The appellant also didn’t take any steps to invoke the truth to file additional appeal records. Therefore, the appeal was not legally brought to court. The same behaviour has been used by Sateras in continuing his appeal. Only at the last moment when he was besieged, a careless temptation was made to plead for the truth to restore the appeal records. This kind of behavior should not be justified.