9/16/2020 NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION V AMOS SIEH SIEBO-MOTION TO DISMISS-FINAL JUDGMENT – the Court cannot accept as true the representation made by counsel. This Court has said numerously that it is incumbent on counsel for a party face with such predicament to ensure a receipt is secured or signature placed on the instrument authenticating the exact date on which the instrument is received. There is no such evidence in the instant case. Accordingly, the Court must accept, as argued by the movant/appellee that the respondent/appellant received the ruling on the date stated in the said ruling. Thus, the respondent/ appellant had period of three (3) days within which to undertake his recognizance with the NEC and to file his bill of exceptions, given what we have said regarding the Regulations of the NEC. But further, given also what is provided in our Civil Procedure Law with respect to filing of an instrument where the time for filing is less than ten days, we are disposed to hold that the respondent/appellant had four days to enter into and file the required documents. Using that time-table, the respondent/appellant had until August 14, 2017 to fully comply with the appeal requirements in order that the appeal is perfected and that the Supreme Court is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the merits. Yet, the records show that the respondent/appellant submitted his bill of exceptions for approval of the Commissioners on the 15th day of August, A. D. 2017, and seemed not to have adequately attended thereto, for the said instrument shows also that some of the Commissioners did not sign thereunto until August 16, 2017, two days after the expiration of the deadline. When asked by the Court as to the reason for the none compliance with the law, counsel for the respondent/appellant intimated that he was caught in the traffic and therefore could not reach the offices of the National Elections Commission on the day and date the instrument was due for approval by the Commission and filing thereof. Indeed, the learned counsel conceded in count 20 of the resistance to the motion to dismiss that although he made frantic efforts to comply with the appeal regulation statute (i.e. the three days’ time frame), he was unsuccessful in meeting the deadline as a result of traffic congestion which prevented him from reaching the Commission office in time. We find this excuse to be unacceptable and we are not prepared to condone such affront to the law. judiciary.gov.lr/national-elections-commission-v-amos-sieh-siebo-motion-to-dismiss-final-judgment/ 32/36