JUDGMENT
When the hearing of this appeal began Mr. Jiwaji for the first respondent took the preliminary objection that the notice of appeal was not served in accordance with rule 76 (1) of the rules of this Court, and that the record of appeal was not served in accordance with rule 87(1). The facts are that the notice of appeal, which should have been served within seven days of the date of filing (March 19, 1981) was not served until April 1, 1981, five days out of time; and the record of appeal, which was filed on May 13, 1981, which should have been served within seven days thereafter had not been served by the July 24, 1981, when Mr. Jiwaji filed his notice of motion. The responsibility for effecting service is in each case placed upon the appellant by the relevant Rule. Mr Chalalu for the appellant has taken no steps before today to apply for extensions of time and so regularise these procedural defects. He has applied informally today, and his reason for not complying with the Ru…