<p class="ql-align-center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL</p><p class="ql-align-center">AT NAIROBI</p><p class="ql-align-center">(CORAM: Platt Ag JA)</p><p class="ql-align-center">CIVIL APPLICATION NO 125 OF 1985</p><p class="ql-align-center">BETWEEN</p><p class="ql-align-center">NAIROBI HOME ECONOMICS TRAINING CENTRE .................................APPLICANT</p><p class="ql-align-center">AND</p><p class="ql-align-center">AFRICAN HERITAGE LTD...........................................................................RESPONDENT</p><p class="ql-align-center">RULING</p><p class="ql-align-justify">March 28, 1988, Platt Ag JA delivered the following Ruling.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">By motion on notice, the applicant, Nairobi Home Economics Training Centre, seeks an extension of time for the filing of an appeal. The respondent, African Heritage Ltd, opposes the motion. Mrs Khaminwa represented the applicant and Mr Fraser represented the respondent.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">The formal facts are such that if they are reliable, Mr Fraser conceded that he would not oppose the motion. But he challenges the certificate of delay and that raises the interesting issue in the application.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">Mr Gathuku explained in his affidavit supporting the motion, dated December 9, 1985, that on June 14, 1984 the High Court gave its ruling on an application for summary judgmen…</p>