We granted certiorari in this case to consider the holding of our Court of Appeals that the applicants-condemnees could not avail themselves of the renewal provision of former OCGA 9-2-61 (a), Ga. Laws 1967, pp. 226, 244, 39. 1 Adams v. Cobb County, 184 Ga. App. 879 (363 SE2d 260) (1987). Having reviewed this issue, we conclude that the court of appeals' decision is correct. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. WELTNER, Justice, dissenting. For every practical purpose and for every substantive issue, a condemnee who appeals a determination of value to a jury under OCGA 32-3-14 is a plaintiff. The renewal statute, OCGA 9-2-61 (a), is remedial in nature and should be construed broadly. Its provisions should extend to these appellants as de facto plaintiffs. See OCGA 1-3-5; Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826, 828-9 ( 251 SE2d 566) (1979). I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this dissent. | 
