LIBERIA ELECTRICITY CORPORATION, represented by and through its Managing Director, SAMUEL N. BURNETTE, JR., Appellant, v. TOYE C. BARNARD, Appellee.

JUDGEMENT WITHOUT OPINION

Decided: December 21, 1979.

At the call of this case, Counsellor J. Emmanuel R. Berry appeared for the appellant, and Counsellor Toye C. Barnard appeared for the appellee and filed motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the appellant, on the ground that the appeal was completed beyond the time required by statute for the completion of appeals. The statute provides:

“After the filing of the bill of exceptions and the filing of the appeal bond as required by sections 51.7 and 51.8, the clerk of the trial court on application of the appellant shall issue a notice of the completion of the appeals; a copy of which shall be served by the appellant on the appellee. The original of such notice shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court.” Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code I: 51.9.
The appeal statute has laid down the grounds upon which appeals from judgments of the lower court may be dismissed, and section 51.16 of the Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code I, provides: The statute reads:

“Dismissal of appeal for failure to proceed to proceed. An appeal may be dismissed by the trial court on motion for failure of the appellant to file a bill of exceptions within the time allowed by statute, and by the appellate court after filing of the bill of exceptions for failure of the appellant to appear on the hearing of the appeal, to file an appeal bond, or to serve notice of the completion of the appeal as required by statute.”

According to our procedure and practice notice of the completion of an appeal must be served upon the appellee within ninety days of rendition of judgment, and must also be returned served by the ministerial officer within that time.
Counsellor Berry, the appellant’s counsel contended that it was his duty as counsel for the appellant to only see that the notice was prepared and filed within ninety days, but that it was the duty of the ministerial officer to have the said notice served; he insisted that his client should not suffer for failure of the sheriff to serve within time.
This Court has said over and again that appealing counsel should superintend their appeals so as to see that all of the legal requirements incident to an appeal might be met. But in one of the recent cases decided January 1970 the Court said: “the failure of an appellant to timely serve a notice of the completion of an appeal renders the appeal liable to attack and once a motion has been brought to dismiss for failure to timely perfect the appeal, the Court may not cure the omission by an order to issue and serve such notice.” Gaddini v. Habr, [1970] LRSC 4; 19 LLR 407(1970). In syllabus three of that opinion it is written: “A party perfecting an appeal as in all litigations must protect his interest by diligently doing for himself the thing the courts are not bound to do for him.” It is therefore adjudged that the motion to dismiss should be and the same is hereby granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
The Clerk of this Court is ordered to send a mandate to the trial court commanding the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over the cause and enforce the judgment. Costs are disallowed. And it is so ordered.