ANGELA DENNIS-BROWN, LOUISE DENNISAUSTIN, HENRY DAVIES, THELMA T. REEVES, legal representatives of the heirs of GABRIEL L. DENNIS, C. C. DENNIS, SR., and LOUISE RICKS-SAMUELS only surviving heirs of GEORGIANNA DENNIS-RAILEY, GEORGIANNA DENNIS-ROSS, and SAVENIA DENNIS-HANDSFORD, Appellants, v. SAMUEL FORD DENNIS, MABEL DENNIS-MANN, JEANETTE DENNIS-PRATT and ESTELLA LOUISE DENNIS, only surviving heirs of WILMOT F. DENNIS, Appellees.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued April 27, 1970. Decided June 11, 1970. 1. When a motion is made to dismiss an appeal, for failure to file an approved appeal bond and file and serve notice of completion of appeal within the prescribed time, it is not a defense that the papers were, in fact, filed. Timeliness is essential and failure to comply with its requirements lends the appeal subject to dismissal. A motion was brought by appellees to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds of failure to file, within the statutory time allowed, an approved appeal bond and notice of completion of the appeal served. Appellants opposed the motion, contending appellees had misstated the facts, for they had, in fact, filed the papers at issue, though beyond the time allowed by statute. The motion was granted, the appeal dismissed. J. Dossen Richards for appellants. latse for appellees. 96 McDonald Aco- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL 97 delivered the opinion of the Court. In the June Term, 1964, of the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, appellees filed a bill of equity for the cancellation of a warranty deed because of fraud and deceit. The judge ruled for petitioners after pleadings were completed, and an appeal was taken. During the pendency of the appeal, appellees moved this Court to dismiss the appeal, alleging a failure to file an appeal bond and notice of completion of appeal. Inspection of the record shows that the decree was rendered August 7, 1969, but up to and including October 8 of the same year, sixty-one days later, the approved appeal bond had not been filed in the clerk’s office as the law requires, nor the notice of completion issued and served on the appellees. The motion was opposed. Our law is quite clear on the subject. “The appellant shall secure the approval of the bond by the trial judge and shall file it with the clerk of the court within sixty days after rendition of judgment. Notice of the filing shall be served on opposing counsel.” Civil Procedure Law, L. 1963-64, ch. III, � 5108. The same Civil Procedure Law provides in section 5116 for dismissals. “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.” No exception has been made for tardy compliance, and late filing and service cannot be a defense to a motion to dismiss for such failure. 98 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS The appeal bond in this case was filed in the office of the clerk of the court below on October 15, 1969, and notice of the completion of the appeal was issued and served on October 17, 1969, ten days after the statutory time in which this should have been done and performed. In M crittley v. Laland, i LLR, 254, 255 (1894), it was held : “With reference to the motion the Court says that in all appeal cases it is the writ of summons or notice served upon the appellee and the returns thereto made, which give the court jurisdiction over the case. The statute regulating appeals is imperative in directing that all appeals should be taken within sixty days after the rendition of the final judgment of the court from which the appeal is prayed : this implying that the appellant do or cause to be done all that is necessary to bring the appeal and the appellee properly before the appeal court. “It is needless for this Court to enter into extensive arguments to establish the well-known requirements of the law, as it should be obvious to every reflecting mind that an appeal is not complete until the appellee is duly summoned, which summons places him under the jurisdiction of the court to which the appeal is taken; therefore the summons or notice forms a very integral part of an appeal and should be served within the time allowed for the completion of the appeal.” Accordingly, it is apparent that it is the sole responsibility of the appellant to so conduct his appeal that all of the duties to be performed for the completion of his appeal be timely done. Any neglect in any respect as enumerated by statute is considered to be a fatal defect which this Court cannot cure. We have no alternative but to grant the motion and dismiss the appeal, with costs against the appellants, and the Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a man-