R U L I N G
Before me is an application made under rule 4 of this Court’s rules for the following order:
“1. The time for service of the Notice of Appeal lodged in the High Court on 12th May, 2005 be extended to: -
(a) 25th May 2005 in respect of the 1st, 4th and 5th Respondents;
(b) 30th May 2005 in respect of the 2nd Respondent and;
(c) 26th May 2005 in respect of the 3rd Respondent.
SO THAT: the said notice of appeal be deemed to have been served in time and further that this appeal be deemed to be lodged timeously and/or properly.”
The last limb; “and further that this appeal be deemed to be lodged timeously and/or properly ” was withdrawn orally at the hearing of the application as it was superfluous.
The reason for seeking such order is straightforward and is expressed in the supporting affidavit sworn by Njeri Mucheru–Oyatta, the advocate seized of the matter. She swore on 07.07.05 as follows: -
“3. THAT after filing the notice of appeal, the same was retained by the superior court for …