It would be rendered futile if it could not proceed in the Sessions Court. [4] The Appellant had left this issue to the discretion of the Sessions Court. There were no objections by the Appellant. The Sessions Court allowed the Enclosure 60 to proceed without prejudice to the order of the stay of proceedings under s10 AA. Directions were then given for the filing of affidavits and submissions. The Sessions Court set 28.4.2025 for its decision on the assessment of damages. [5] The Sessions Court directed that the Appellant was to file its Affidavit-in-Reply by 20.2.2025 and the Respondent to respond by 6.3.2025. Written Submissions were directed to be filed by 20.3.2025, with their respective Reply Submissions on 10.4.2025. [6] On 10.2.2025 the Appellant’s solicitor sought clarification from the Sessions Court. The Appellant alleged that the draft order prepared by the Respondent’s solicitor was inconsistent and Enclosure 60 could not proceed given the stay of proceedings under s10 AA. [7] On 21.2.2025 at the clarification, the Sessions Court upheld its decision and directions for the determination of Enclosure 60. [8] On 25.2.2025 the Appellant’s solicitors issues a letter to the Respondent’s solicitor requesting an extension of time to file its Affidavit in Reply. It did not file by 20.2.2025 as directed by the Sessions Court. [9] On 26.2.2025 the Respondent’s solicitors promptly responded that the Respondent was not agreeable to the Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file its Affidavit in Reply. Subsequently on the same day, the Appellant’s solicitors issued another letter to the Respondent’s solicitors. The Appellant’s letter of 26.2.2025 requested the Appellant to disregard their letter of 25.2.2025 as the Appellant had instructed its solicitors to file a notice of appeal to the High Court despite being aware of a 6-day delay when it had done so. The Appellant’s solicitors queried whether the Respondent would object to the delay in filing the notice of appeal to the High Court. [10] The Respondent’s solicitors replied stating objections to the intention of late filing of notice of appeal to the High Court. Yet, the Appellant had served its notice of appeal dated 28.2.2025 to the Respondent on 3.3.2025. [11] On 24.3.2025 at the case management before this Court, the Respondent had raised its preliminary objection to the irregularity and defective notice of appeal. The Respondent highlighted that the Appellant had failed to apply for an extension of time despite 24 days had passed since the notice of appeal was filed. Legal Principles [12] The Appellant had 14 days from the date of the Sessions Court decision meted on 8.2.2025 – Order 55 Rule 2 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). That means the Appellant was to file its appeal latest by 22.2.2025. [13] As there is no provision governing extension of time to file an appeal beyond the required period, any extension of time to file a notice of appeal shall be made under Order 3 Rule 5 RoC. The discretion to allow such application lay entirely with the High Court. It would be granted only if the High Court thinks fit. [14] RoC must be obeyed and there must be some material on which this Court can exercise discretion to favour such application (Ong Guan Teck & Ors v Hijjas [1982] CLJ Rep 616. T [15] The Appellant must give a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. Mistake of the solicitors was not a sufficient ground grant extension of time applications (Gan Hay Chong v Siow Kian Yuh & Anor [1975] CLJU 42 and Tractors Malaysia Bhd v Southern Estates Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ 154). Ignorance of procedural law was not an acceptable explanation to justify the application (Ahmad bin Yahaya & Anor v Ahmad bin Sulaiman [1972] CLJU 4). [16] This said principle of law was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Gurdev Kaur Bhag Singh v BSN Commercial Bank (M) Bhd (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Bank Buruh (Malaysia) Bhd) [2003] 1 CLJ 429). The Applicant according to our courts of law, could always seek remedy elsewhere against the solicitors but mistake was not necessarily a good excuse to grant the application for extension of time. [17] Factors for consideration include the length of the delay and the reasons thereof, the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing was extended and the degree of prejudice to the Respondent if the application was granted (Scott & English (M) Sdn Bhd v Leikie Refridgeration & Stain-Less Steel industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [1994] 3 CLJ 114). Assessment of the Appellant’s Application [18] This Court finds the only reason stated by the Appellant untenable. It was this – it could not file its notice of appeal on 20.2.2025 because the Sessions Court had fixed clarification on 21.2.2025. The only avenue for any disagreement or dissatisfaction with an order of the court is to file an appeal. The court that meted the order does not possess the authority to re-open, alter or amend it (Stone World Sdn Bhd v Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 CLJ 358). What is significant is that the Appellant did not object to the granting of the order but had opted to submit to the Sessions Court’s decision. [19] The application for extension of time (Enclosure 3), was not promptly filed. It was not filed simultaneously with the notice of appeal. Facts show that the Appellant had full knowledge that it breached the timeline as evident by the correspondence with the Respondent’s solicitors. It took the Respondent’s counsel to put such irregularity on official court records for the Appellant to file Enclosure 3. [20] Ther Appellant’s Affidavit-In-Support is absent for any reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal, nor an elucidation why Enclosure 3 was not promptly filed. The excuse that the Appellant’s solicitors had only noticed their mistake upon the preliminary objection by the Respondent was not a valid ground to justify a granting of extension of time. [21] The subject matter of the Appellant’s appeal was the proceeding of Enclosure 60 which is the assessment of damages suffered by the Mareva Injunction which had been set aside. That cause of action arose from the wrongfully obtained Mareva Injunction Order. It was separate and distinct from the proceedings which was granted a stay pursuant to s10 AA which cause of action arose from charter party agreements between the Appellant and the Respondent with agreed arbitration clauses. [22] There was no agreement by either party to assess damages by way of arbitration. In any event, the power to assess general damages, which the Appellant undertook when it applied for the Mareva Injunction Order, remains with the court – Order 37 RoC. [23] This Court was also informed that the arbitration at the Asian International Arbitration Centre had since commenced. Thus, the Appellant’s appeal which was filed out of time, was academic. [24] Furthermore, the Appellant had failed to file any affidavit for the purposes of the determination of Enclosure 60. This Court mindfully accepted the Respondent’s contention that it would be prejudiced as it further prolonged the Respondent’s claim which it was entitled to recover for damages suffered due to the wrongfully obtained Mareva Injunction Order. Conclusion [25] Enclosure 3 is dismissed. As an extension of time was not granted, the Appellant’s appeal was irregular and struck out. Costs of RM3,000 were ordered to be paid to the Respondent, subject to allocator. DATED 18 JULY 2025 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR