The printed copy of any pleading to the Supreme Court, while matching the electronic copy, should be filed simultaneously with the latter

Brief facts

The applicant filed an originating motion dated April 30, 2021 seeking review of the ruling declining to grant certification. The applicant also filed a notice of motion dated April 13, 2023 and filed on June 7, 2023 seeking leave to amend the originating motion. The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal when declining to grant certification, failed to appreciate that private citizens entered into contracts with Government agencies all the time and the procurement law was structured in a way that private citizens lacked the means of knowing whether the officials of those Government agencies had complied with their statutory obligations and internal policies, before entering into such contracts. The applicant contended that the intended appeal met the threshold to be certified as a matter of general public importance. 

The notice of motion sought leave to the originating motion on grounds that the applicant failed to include the orders it was seeking in the originating motion. The 1^st respondent opposed the notice of motion on grounds that: the application was filed two years after the original originating motion of April 30, 2021, hence the inordinate delay in filing the application had not been explained; should such an extension be granted, it would have been extended by a huge margin; and the application was a futile exercise and an abuse of the courts process. 

Issues

What was the effect of failure to file the printed copy of a pleading at the Supreme Court, after filing the electronic copy? 

Held

1. The applicant filed its originating motion dated April 30, 2021on the courts e-filing online platform on April 30, 2021, which was the last day for filing an application seeking review of a certification ruling from the Court of Appeal. The invoice from the e-filing platform proved that. As per rule 33(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, such a review should be sort within 14 days. However, the applicant failed to also file the printed copy of the originating motion and only proceeded to present the physical copy on June 7, 2023, almost two years after filing the electronic copy. 
2. A plain reading of rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules would lead to the simple conclusion that the printed copy of any pleading, while matching the electronic copy, shall be filed simultaneously with the latter. That must remain the operative rule in the court. The applicant had physically filed its originating motion almost two years from the date of delivery of the ruling, more specifically, a delay of 1 year and 11 months. The originating motion, although filed electronically, failed to comply with the procedure provided for under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. 
3. The applicant did not provide an explanation as to why he failed to present the printed copies to the registry as was required under the Supreme Court Rules. Instead, the applicant proceeded to file another application seeking leave to amend its application for review, though being fully aware that it had sat on the printed copy of the originating motion. The originating motion dated April 30, 2021, having been filed on June 7, 2023 was not properly filed. As a corollary, the applicants notice of motion dated April 13, 2023 and filed on June 7, 2023 fell by the wayside as it had no leg to stand on.