Judgment No. SC 21/2018 Civil Appeal No. SC 89/16 For the foregoing reasons I consider that the judgment the applicant seeks to appeal against is water tight and unassailable. As such, there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Although the first respondent has asked for costs at the punitive scale, these are not warranted. The first respondent was in a way to blame by delaying in seeking transfer. It is accordingly ordered: 1. That the application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is hereby dismissed. 2. That the applicant shall pay costs of this application at the ordinary scale. Honey & Blanckenberg, applicant’s legal practitioners. Wilmot & Bennett, first respondent’s legal practitioners. 9