LIBERIA ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (LEC), by and thru its Managing Director, Appellant/ Respondent, v. JOHNNIE N. LEWIS and JESTINA GREENFIELD, Administrator and Administratrix, respectively, of the Intestate Estate of the late MOULTON GREENFIELD, Appellees/Movants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.
Heard: June 24, 1986. Decided: July 31, 1986.

1. An appellant’s failure to file an approved appeal bond within the statutory time prescribed is sufficient ground for dismissal of an appeal in the Supreme Court. However, the court will lean more on the side of hearing an appeal on its merits than dismissing it on legal technicalities for failure to proceed.
2. Where the blunder committed by the appellant in perfecting an appeal is traceable in any degree to the negligence of court officials, appellant will not be allowed to bear the brunt of such negligence or for lack of diligence.

On March 3, 1986, appellant, the Liberia Electricity Corporation, excepted to an adverse ruling in the trial court and announced an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Corporation took all steps to perfect its appeal by filing all relevant documents on April 22, 1986 with the clerk of the trial court, including an appeal bond which the clerk upon appellant’s request specifically promised to have the judge sign. Instead, the said clerk forwarded all documents pertinent to the appeal to the Supreme Court without having the trial judge sign the appeal bond. Incidentally, on the same day, April 22, 1986, the appellees obtained a certificate from the clerk of the trial court indicating that the appeal bond filed by the appellant was not approved by the trial judge. Thereupon appellees, on May 30, 1986, filed a motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal for failure to file an approved bond within the statutory period. Even though the general rule is that an appeal will be dismissed for failure to file an approved bond within the statutory period, the Court, in reviewing the facts and circumstances in the matter, developed a more narrowly constructed issue: Whether or not appellant’s appeal in this case should be dismissed for failure to file an approved appeal bond due to the failure of the clerk of the lower court to have same signed by the trial judge? The court responded in the negative and, accordingly dismissed the motion.

The Steele and Steele Law Firm, through Alfred B. Flomo, appeared for appellant/respondent. Johnnie N. Lewis and M Fahnbulleh Jones appeared for appellees/movants.

MR. JUSTICE JANGABA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Movants in this case filed an action of damages for wrongful death against Liberia Electricity Corporation (L.E.C.) and the National Social Security and Welfare Corporation (NS SWC) for the death of one Moulton Greenfield of Monrovia, an employee of L.E.C. who died while in active service of said corporation. Final judgment in the case was rendered for plaintiffs, now movants, on March 3, 1986, to which respondent/appellant, as defendant below, excepted and announced an appeal to the October Term, 1986 of this Court, which appeal was granted.

Appellant/respondent filed an appeal bond and an approved bill of exceptions with the Clerk of this Court on April 22, 1986, and thereafter issued the necessary notice of completion of appeal on the said date. Incidentally, on the same April 22, 1986, appellees secured a certificate from the clerk of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, to the effect that the appeal bond filed by appellants was not approved by the trial judge.

Considering that failure to file an approved appeal bond constitutes a jurisdictional defect for the appellant in this jurisdiction, appellees filed a motion on May 30, 1986, to have the said appeal dismissed for failure to file an approved appeal bond within legal time required by law.

In response to the motion to dismiss the appeal, appellant/ respondent, co-defendant in the court below, filed its resistance claiming that it had taken every step necessary to have its appeal perfected and that the clerk of the lower court had made a sincere promise to have its appeal bond approved since it was sufficient in every respect. Appellant/respondent further explained that the said clerk had neglected to have its appeal bond approved by the trial judge, and had thereafter connived with appellees to have the documents in said matter forwarded to the Supreme Court without approval and for which, he issued a certificate to appellees. Appellant/respondent concluded that the fault of the clerk of the trial court should not be imputed to them to the extent of denying appellants the right of having their appeal heard on the merits, especially when both the appeal and the motion to dismiss the appeal have not been docketed by this Court for hearing this term.

From the foregoing, we have come to the conclusion that one issue presents itself for our determination: Whether or not appellant’s appeal in this case should be dismissed for failure to file an approved appeal bond due to the failure of the clerk of lower court to have same approved and signed by the lower court judge?

We are aware of the fact that several of the opinions of this Court maintain that an appellant’s failure to file an approved appeal bond within the statutory time prescribed is sufficient ground for dismissal of an appeal before this bench. See Dadzie v. Dadzie, [1968] LRSC 34; 19 LLR 7 (1968) and Lamco J. V Operating Company and the Board of General Appeals v. Doe-Kpa[1984] LRSC 54; , 32 LLR 458 (1984). However that may be, this Court leans on the side of hearing an appeal on its merits more than to have it dismissed upon legal technicalities for failure to proceed. Moreover, where the blunder committed by the appellant can be traced in any degree to the negligence of court officials, appellant will not be allowed to bear the brunt of such negligence or for of lack diligence. In such cases, this Court will be available to render the necessary assistance to an embarrassed appellant who calls on it to render such assistance as would have his appeal heard on its merits, rather than dismiss it. Logan v. Meyer, [1915] LRSC 9; 2 LLR 200 (1915); Duncan v. Perry, 13 LLR 210 (1958). Perry et. al. v. Knight et. al.[1936] LRSC 24; , 5 LLR 276 (1936).

Having scanned through the records in this appeal and compared the pleadings on both sides, our sympathy has been compelled to favor the appellant in this case who exerted every effort and diligence in perfecting his appeal, but due to the iniquitous tendencies exhibited by the clerk below his appeal bond, otherwise valid, was not signed and approved by the trial judge as is required by statute and by our several opinions hereto cited in this opinion. The clerk, in pursuit of his own personal benefits, merely forwarded the documents to this Court without the sincere assistance he had promised a diligent appellant.

Considering the amount of damage involved in this matter, the diligence exercised by appellant, otherwise successful without the act of the clerk referred to earlier herein, we are compelled to deny the motion to dismiss this appeal and have the case heard on its merits in order to ensure substantial justice in the matter.

Therefore, and in view of the laws cited herein, the motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby denied and said appeal is ordered docketed to be heard on its merits during the next term of this Court, which is October, 1986 Term.
Costs to abide final determination. And it is so ordered.

Motion denied