xv. It is not clear whether the separate bundle and the compact discs were filed with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court on the 10th of August 2018 and if so it is unclear why the applicant has elected not to serve them on the 23rd and 24th respondents and I in terms of the rules of court. As this separate bundle and compact discs are clearly intended to form an integral part of the applicant’s founding papers in his challenge to the presidential election return, if they were not filed, the view can be taken, persuasively so, that what was filed by the applicant on the 10th of August 2018 was only half of his application. Indeed, what was served on the respondents was not the complete application in the absence of the bundles and compact discs referred to by the applicant. A party cannot file and serve a court application in instalments. xvi. Because of the Constitutional time limit prescribed in s93(1) of the Constitution, the applicant can no longer present any further founding papers to the Registrar of the Constitutional Court in respect of CCZ42/18. The separate bundle and the compact discs are thus no longer capable of being filed by the applicant in founding his cause in this matter. They most certainly are no longer capable of being served in conformity with the peremptory timeframes set out in the rules of court which timeframes determine whether a petition in terms of s93(1) of the Constitution has been duly lodged. It has not. xvii. Lest the points I make herein above be viewed as sterile and formalistic, I aver that they have a very practical and substantive significance in this matter. Matters initiated by notice of motion require, by peremptory dictate of our law, that the applicant make out his entire case in the founding papers. In turn, a