<p class="ql-align-center">RULING OF THE COURT</p><p class="ql-align-justify">This is an application by way of Notice of Motion expressed as having been brought <em>“under Rules 42, 43, 74, 80, 81 and 85 of the Court of Appeal Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law.”</em> In this application, the applicant, <em>Patrick Mukiri Kabundu,</em> acting in person, sought the following orders:-</p><p class="ql-align-justify"><em>“1. THAT the Notice of Appeal filed herein on 25</em><em>^th</em><em> October, 2005 by the 1</em><em>^st</em><em> Respondent be struck out.</em></p><p class="ql-align-justify"><em>2. THAT the cost of the applicant be borne by the respondent in any event.”</em></p><p class="ql-align-justify">This application is brought on the following grounds:-</p><p class="ql-align-justify"><em>“(a) THAT the Notice of Appeal dated 25</em><em>^th</em><em> October, 2005 is incurably defective in substance and form.</em></p><p class="ql-align-justify"><em>(b) THAT the 1</em><em>^st</em><em> Respondent herein has failed to take some essential requirements after filing the Notice of Appeal thus rendering the intended appeal incompetent .</em></p><p class="ql-align-justify">In addition to the foregoing grounds, there is a supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant setting out in some detail the background to this matter.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">When the application came up f…</p>