This was an Appeal in which the Appellants sought permission to enter a Judgment more than three months after it was pronounced, pursuant to Rule 9.5(2). The Court highlighted that Rule 9.5(2) aims to prevent delays and ensure the finality of decisions. It stressed that if parties cannot agree on the form of a Judgment, they must utilize Rules 9.2 and 9.3, which establish procedures for swiftly resolving disputes over Judgment forms. Additionally, the Court pointed out that according to Rule 9.6, a Judgment takes effect on the date it is pronounced, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution of any disputes concerning its form.

Despite acknowledging the unreasonable delay in entering the Judgment, the Court concluded that entering the Judgment was in the interests of justice. Therefore, the Appellants were granted permission to enter the Judgment. Regarding Costs, the Court applied Rule 14.88, which presumes that the successful party in an appeal is entitled to Costs. The Court also mandated that if the parties could not agree on the form of the order within 20 days, they must promptly schedule a conference call with the president of the panel under Rule 14.77(2).